Contributions By: Joseph G. Miller & Claude LeBlanc, M.A.
Welcome to the Magis Center Online Forum
Instructions for using our forum:
With the purchase of this Workbook +, you are entitled to access our online forum for one year. Our forum is staffed by trained facilitators ready to answer your questions. We will do our best to answer your questions in a professional, courteous and understandable way. Your questions should be related to Magis Center materials and presentations. Here is your unique registration key code for accessing the forum. This will only work for one IP address so it is really just for you. The instructions are below the registration key. We look forward to having you in our discussions.
Print Registration Key Here
1. Go to www.thereasonseries.org 2. Click on "Register," read all "Disclaimer/Instructions," paying particular attention to using and personalizing the above Registration Key. Click "I agree to these terms."
3. You will be asked to create a username. You may personalize this name, but it must begin with the unique, six-digit registration key above. You will also be prompted to enter your email address and password. Click submit. When accepted, you will be sent an email notice with a link. Click on the link. (You may need to wait 24 hours for administrator approval. Sorry for this inconvenience, but it is for your security and protection.)
4. A page will pop up with spaces waiting for you to enter your username and password. Enter your information and click "Log In."
5. A new page pops up. Select "Your First Forum" and you can make your first post or select other available posts to view/ respond.
6. Please remember to sign out when you are done with your session. We do hope you participate in our forum. Your input may help someone else.
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. & Michael K. Noggle
Contributions By: Joseph G. Miller Claude LeBlanc, M.A.
Based on the DVD series: From Nothing to Cosmos: God and Science FR. ROBERT J. SPITZER, S.J., PH.D.
A Magis Center Production 13280 Chapman Ave. Christ Cathedral, Tower of Hope, 9th Floor Garden Grove, CA 92840
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Acknowledgements
We can’t thank Joan Jacoby enough for her tireless work in typing and formatting this Workbook. Special thanks to Joe Miller for his many edits and suggestions and Claude LeBlanc for his suggestions on the study questions. Thanks also to Dr. Juliana Gerace for her typing and proofreading, and to Jim Breen for his artistic contributions. Thank you to all of the Magis Institute Benefactors who fund our Magis Center projects. Most of all, thanks to the Holy Spirit for guiding all of our efforts.
Cover Art by Jim Breen
© 2015 Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D., and Michael K. Noggle / Magis Center
All rights reserved www.magiscenter.com
This edition published by: Magis Publications Christ Cathedral Tower, 9th Floor 13280 Chapman Ave. Garden Grove, CA 92840
ISBN: 978-9838945-7-5
Printed in the United States of America
February 3, 2015
Editor Ignatius Press San Francisco, CA
Dear Editor:
I am writing to let you know that I have read the following book by Robert J. Spitzer, S. J. and Michael K. Noggle, and I find it to be deserving of a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur with respect to its accord with Catholic teachings:
From Nothing to Cosmos: The Workbook +
I am authorized to give approval of books by Jesuits of the Oregon Province and have done so for several authors.
Sincerely,
David J. Leigh, S. J., PhD Professor of English and Theology Seattle University Seattle, WA 98122
Introduction to: From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Welcome to From Nothing to Cosmos: The Workbook+. It is more than just a workbook. Bring your “smart Device” and we will provide QR codes to connect you to video clips, biographies and excerpts from the original Study Guide. The Workbook + can be used on its own, but it is intended to accompany, and help interpret, the DVD series entitled, From Nothing to Cosmos: God and Science (based on Fr. Spitzer’s award winning book, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy).
The Workbook+ is filled with useful information – perhaps the most useful information imaginable – contemporary scientific evidence of an intelligent Creator and a transphysical soul. Through the course of 16 chapters in 4 episodes (DVDs), we will explore several kinds of evidence for the transcendent from science and philosophy.
We will be examining the following topics:
1. What science can and cannot do. 2. The Big Bang Theory and the modern universe. 3. The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth proof for a beginning of ANY universe or multiverse. 4. The evidence for a beginning from Entropy. 5. Evidence of supernatural design from fine-tuning of universal constants. 6. A response to atheist’s objections (particularly, Richard Dawkins). 7. A metaphysical proof of God. 8. Evidence of a transphysical soul from near death experiences. 9. Evidence of a transcendent soul from our five transcendental desires. 10. Atheism, the bible, science, and evolution and aliens.
Each Chapter will follow a five-step process to lead you from readiness through understanding to review and finally, reflection. These steps are:
1) Introduction – a preview of what we will explain. 2) Preview Questions – to help you reflect on your current views of the subject matter. 3) Presentation - a full explanation of the DVD content (with references and study resources). 4) Review – a summary of the points made in the presentation. 5) Questions – for study and reflection by individuals and groups.
Here are some important notes on how to use the workbook and other resources:
1. Time Stamps: To help you find this spot in the DVD. “02:34” would indicate this section starts at 2 minutes and 34 seconds into the related DVD (“DVDs” and “Episodes” are synonymous for our purposes).
2. Free Online Forum: Inside the cover of every Workbook + is a unique registration code to our forum. Trained facilitators are standing by to answer your (related) questions.
3. QR Codes: These are the little squares that look like bar codes. They will take you to additional reference materials from many sources. We have included many clips from the DVDs so you won’t have to search for them. All you need is a “smart device” (phone or pad) with an app to read bar codes / QR codes. If you don’t have the app, you can get one online for free. The QR codes will open up additional resources. There will be many codes scattered through the Workbook +. With your smart device and app, all you have to do is point it at the QR and it will do the rest. You don’t even have to will click a be button. many Try this codes one (QR4) scattered and be through the transported to our website and directly to the Study Guide.
http://magisqr.com/004qrs.ly/zs4ja81
4. Online Study Guide: The original Study Guide for this series , From Nothing to http://qrs.ly/zs4ja81 Cosmos: God and Science (by Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D.) is available FREE at our website. Go to http://www.magiscenter.com/from-nothing-to-cosmos-study-guide/ (or use QR4 -- as we noted immediately above -- with your smart device to go directly to the Study Guide). You may access the whole text – or go directly to individual chapters through the Table of Contents. Those who want a hard copy of the Study Guide may purchase it on our website store.
5.
6. “Short URLs” Just in case you are using a computer and don’t have a smart device, you can still read all of the QRs by simply typing in the custom short URL that you will find immediately beneath each QR code. Here is an example, try it on your computer – q-r.to/0Mcj. These custom codes are generated to make your life a bit easier.
You may, and most likely will, find numerous new words and terms from science and philosophy in this book. Though we provide definitions, either in the text or in the footnotes, we are providing all of the above methods to help you get the most from these materials.
Why is Magis Presenting these Materials?
The 21st century is by far the best time in human history to be studying evidence for God from science. In addition to the evidence of the Big Bang (the presumed beginning of our universe 13.8 billion years ago), we now have evidence for the beginning of almost every known universal configuration – multiverses, bouncing universes, string universes, static universes, and so much more. As we shall see, the evidence from space-time geometry proofs, entropy, and anthropic coincidences shows not only a beginning of physical reality (and its implications for a transcendent creation), but also for an incredible intelligence lying behind that creation. The evidence for a transphysical soul from peer-reviewed medical studies of near death experiences also confirms the existence of a transcendent reality beyond our physical universe. Never before in human history have we had all of this scientific evidence to complement the philosophical proofs for the existence of God.
Despite all this evidence, certain scientists and philosophers have proposed a materialistic and atheistic agenda. Though their thoughts have attained the status of “best sellers,” many of them conveniently ignore the evidence we will present in this Workbook+ -- despite the fact that it comes from the very best physicists and physicians in this century. This materialistic and atheistic agenda has confused many people by its gaping errors of omission. Our purpose in writing this Workbook+ is to give faculty and students the “whole story” – about all the evidence -- so that you can judge for yourselves what is most reasonable and http:// responsible. Here is a sample for you (see QR90). à magisqr.com/090
If you find this presentation to be a more complete and logical explanation of the evidence from science and philosophy than that of popular materialism and atheism, then we would ask that you share it with others – so that you and they may know of the true eternal, transcendent destiny that awaits you in the infinite and all-loving God. As we shall explain, this transcendent perspective is essential to seeing the true dignity of every human being and to working for a culture that is worthy of that dignity. This transcendent perspective holds the key to the future of humankind, and you can play a part in making it a reality in the lives of the people around you.
Join us now as we seek to discover God and the transcendent through science.
Dedications
To my mother and father who imparted to me a spirit of inquiry, learning, and faith Fr. Spitzer
To my loving wife, Patricia, who supports me in all my endeavors with great patience and understanding. Michael
THE WORKBOOK +
Table of Contents: Chapter Episode 1 Page DVD Time Stamp
1. What Science Can and Cannot Do 1 00:35 2. The Big Bang Theory and the Modern Universe 7 21:26 3. The Beginning—From Space-Time Geometry Proofs 15 47:30
Episode 2 1. The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof for a Beginning of Expanding Universes 23 00:47 2. The Evidence of a Beginning from Entropy Universe 31 23:00 3. The Fine-Tuning of Universal Conditions and Constants 38 40:12
Episode 3 1. The Multiverse vs. Supernatural Design 47 00:38 2. A Response to Two Objections to Supernatural Design 52 13:41 3. A Metaphysical Explanation of a Creator—A Response 57 21:00 to Richard Dawkins 4. A Summary of the Evidence for an Intelligent Creator 67 41:35 from Physics 5. Evidence of a Soul from Near Death Experience 71 48:05
Episode 4 1. Near-Death Experiences Continued 77 00:50 2. More Evidence of a Soul from the Five Transcendental Desires 83 06:05 3. A Summary of the Evidence for a Creator and a Soul and the Question of Atheism 92 25:54 4. The Bible, Evolution, and Aliens 101 36:30 5. Summary of the Series 114 57:20
QR Library 119
FNTC – What Science Can and Cannot Do
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode One Chapter 1
What Science Can and Cannot Do (00:00 ~ 21:25)
Introduction to the series:
Each episode (DVD) in the series contains numerous chapters. This Episode (DVD 1) contains three chapters: 1) What Science Can and Cannot Do (with respect to God) 2) The Big Bang Theory and the Modern Universe 3) Evidence for the Beginning of the Universe from Space-Time Geometry Proofs. The Table of Contents will show you the chapters in each episode, their beginning page numbers and the time stamp for the DVD.
In this chapter, Fr. Spitzer shares three conclusions from mainstream physics and philosophy:
1) Science cannot disprove God. 2) Science cannot possibly know everything about everything in the universe so science cannot really say the universe does not need God. 3) Science can give evidence for God’s existence.
1 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Episode One, Chapter 1: What Science Can and Cannot Do
Introduction:
Imagine this; it’s your first week back to school and a new friend begins telling you about an article he read over the summer from a well-known scientist who said, “God is not necessary for the creation of our universe or mankind.” What do you think about a world-renowned scientist making such a claim? How do you react?
Well, this really happened. The scientist was Stephen Hawking, Ph.D. and many people, including students, are talking about it. Fr. Robert Spitzer, the author of New Proofs for the Existence of God QR 31 Larry challenged Dr. Hawking on The Larry King Show and wants you to King Clips be aware of why. http://magisqr.com/031
Before you watch the video, here are a few questions to get your brain engaged: 1) Do youyou think think it itis is easier easier for for science science to prove to prove or d isproveor disprove something? something? 2) What wouldwould a a scientist scientist have have to doto doto proveto prove something? something? 3) What wouldwould he he have have to todo do to todisprove disprove something? something? 4) Can youyou think think of of some some scientific scientific evidence evidence that thatmight might imply imply the existence the existence of a creator? of a creator?What form What might form that evidencemight that take? evidence If not, whytake? not If not, why not
Presentation:
Section 1. Can Science Actually Disprove God? (02:34 ~ 08:05):
Did you know that it is much harder for science to disprove than to prove something? The Scientific Method always has to begin with observational (empirical) data. Have you ever thought about how difficult it would be to try to prove something does NOT exist using the Scientific Method?
“The Scientific Method” is the name given for a system scientists use to provide evidence for or against various hypotheses. It is an inductive process (moving from particular observations to a general theory that unifies them). This means it is limited to studying only observable realities (physical realities within our universe). The process typically involves the following steps:
a. Asking a question, b. Doing background research, c. Forming a hypothesis, d. Testing your hypothesis by observing physical data, e. Analyzing your data, and http://magisqr.com/099 f. Drawing a conclusion and communicating your results.
2 FNTC – What Science Can and Cannot Do
When other scientists replicate an experiment, the results are considered reliable. Scientists may disagree on what the results mean but they agree on the results. Science must always be open to new discoveries since it cannot know what it has not yet discovered.
Before getting into whether or not science can disprove the existence of God, why don’t we start with an easier example? How about aliens? We can prove aliens exist by finding just one. Can we use the Scientific Method to disprove one? Let’s find out:
a. (Asking a question) Do aliens exist? b. (Doing background research) Reports of UFO sightings have never been ‘proven.’ c. (Forming a hypothesis) Aliens don’t exist. d. (Testing your hypothesis by observing physical data) We must go and search for one. We will have to look everywhere in the universe, and in every possible way to know whether or not they exist. e. (Analyzing your data) We didn’t find one. f. (Drawing a conclusion and communicating your results) Because we can’t know for sure that we looked everywhere and in every possible way, there may still be aliens in the universe.
We used the Scientific Method correctly. Doesn’t this mean that aliens do not exist since we didn’t find one? No! It’s really impossible to disprove the existence of aliens with observable (physical) evidence. Think about it, if you see an alien, it exists for sure. If you don’t see one, that doesn’t prove one does not exist. You can just imagine how difficult it would be to be certain you had scoured the entire universe and not missed a thing before concluding there were no aliens. How could you possibly know you didn’t miss anything or that the aliens might be sub-microscopic (or, simply hiding)?
If we apply the same method to God it becomes even more impossible (if it’s possible to be more impossible than impossible). You see, God transcends (is beyond) the universe, but science can only gather data from observing what is within the universe. Therefore, we must recognize that the Scientific Method (and therefore, science) cannot be used to disprove God.
Section 2. Can Science Know Everything About the Universe? (8:05 ~ 11:00): (8:05
Some scientists claim that we know enough about the universe to conclude that the universe can explain its own existence. If they are right, that would mean no Creator was required, making God unnecessary for creation. But, is it even possible for scientists to come to this conclusion? In a word: no. Science is an inductive discipline (going from particular observations to a general theory). There may be new discoveries made in the future that would require changes to existing theories. Here’s the problem-- scientists cannot know what they do not know until they have discovered (observed) it. Even if it were possible, hypothetically, for scientists to gather vast
3 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
amounts of information about the universe, they couldn’t know how much data was still missing, and thus could not say with any confidence that the universe created itself. In other words, science can’t rule out the possibility of a Creator because it must always remain open to new discoveries
The Horizons and Limits of Science
1. Science cannot disprove God. 2. Scientific theories are always open to modification. Therefore, science cannot be sure it knows everything about the universe. 3. Science can give evidence of the beginning of the universe, implying a creation.
Section 3. How Can Science Give Evidence For a Creator? (11:00 ~ 21:25):
There is significant evidence from within our universe that can be used to reveal that there has to be a Creator. Science can provide evidence that there is a limit to past time, implying our universe had a beginning. Does a beginning imply a Creator? Here is why many physicists and philosophers think it does: 1) Prior to a beginning, the universe (and even physical time itself) did not exist--it was literally nothing. 2) If we don’t sneak something into nothing, then the only thing nothing can do is nothing. 3) Therefore, when the universe was nothing (before the beginning), it could not have moved itself from nothingness to something, because it was nothing and capable of only doing nothing. Therefore, something else--beyond the universe-- would have to have moved the universe from nothing to something. Many physicists and philosophers call this a Creator or God. You can plainly see, a beginning indicates a Creator.
While we are often confronted with people saying things like, “Science has proven God is not necessary for creation”, or “God does not exist”, there are many world-famous scientists who do not believe that. That list includes Einstein, Planck Eddington and many more. Here are comments from five of these well-known physicists / mathematicians: QR 30 Scientist
4 FNTC – What Science Can and Cannot Do
Hawking, in his book, The Grand Design, said “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Here is the problem--a law, such as gravity, is not nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, but the law of gravity is clearly something. Such attempts to sneak something into nothing (pre-beginning of reality) are both contradictory and incoherent.
If we really treat “nothing as nothing”, then the universe could not have created itself, and, therefore, something beyond the universe would have to have created it--a Creator or God. http://magisqr.com/097 What if our universe is merely a bubble universe in a multiverse having trillions upon trillions of other bubble universes? Would we still need a creator for our universe? Yes we would, because every multiverse must also have a beginning (which is proven by the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth proof given in Chapter 3 of this episode).Therefore, even if we are a bubble universe within a multiverse (which is completely hypothetical), the multiverse would have to have a Creator to move it from nothing to something before its beginning.
Four Steps from Beginning to Creation
1. Beginning of physical time + the absolute beginning of physical reality. 2. Before the absolute beginning of physical reality - - physical reality = nothing. 3. Nothing + Nothing; nothing can only do nothing. 4. When physical reality = nothing, then physical reality cannot move itself from nothing to something.
Therefore, something else (something transcending physical reality) had to move it from nothing to something - - a Creator.
Chapter Review:
In this first chapter we learned science cannot disprove God. Science can, however, provide evidence that God exists. We learned that there is evidence for the beginning of a universe. If we can prove there was a beginning, that would mean there was nothing before that and, since nothing can only do nothing, a Creator would be required to produce the universe.
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode One, Chapter 1:
1. What are the purpose and limitations of the Scientific Method?
5 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
2. Why is it harder for science to disprove something rather than prove something?
3. How does the example of the existence of aliens demonstrate this?
4. Why is it even more impossible for science to disprove God than aliens?
5. Why can’t science know everything about the universe?
6. What can science tell us about things outside of our universe?
7. What kind of evidence could science give us for a Creator?
8. What does it mean that before our universe existed, it was nothing?
9. What can nothing do?
10. If the universe can’t create itself, what is required for it to exist?
Stuff to remember:
6 FNTC – The Big Bang Theory and the Modern Universe
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode One Chapter 2
The Big Bang Theory and the Modern Universe (21:26 ~ 47:30)
In this chapter, Father Spitzer says, “There has never been a better time for finding scientific evidence pointing to the existence of God.” We will learn about the Big Bang Theory and the Belgian priest, Fr. Georges Lemaître, who first discovered it. We will learn how the overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe was powerful enough to sway the opinion of Albert Einstein.
http://magisqr.com/096
7 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Episode One, Chapter 2: The Big Bang Theory and The Modern Universe
Introduction: (21:26 ~ 47:30):
Before Lemaître’s discovery of the Big Bang, Einstein, like most cosmologists of his time, believed in a static universe (i.e., not expanding or contracting and eternal into the past and the future). He actually “corrected” his original equations for his general theory of relativity to allow for a static universe by arbitrarily inserting a new constant to make it work. However, this was later disproven. Nevertheless, Einstein’s contribution to cosmology cannot be underestimated. He discovered the most comprehensive theory of our universe – the general theory of relativity. It was the first organic cosmological explanation of the universe as a whole.
We will divide this chapter into two major sections:
A) The Big Bang Theory B) The Modern Universe
In this section, we will discuss Edwin Hubble’s use of red shifting to verify Lemaître’s discovery of an expanding universe. We will then discuss Penzias’ and Wilson’s discovery of a universal radiation (from the Big Bang) which further verifies Lemaître’s theory.
In the next section--on the Modern Universe--we will discuss the four forces in the universe as well as dark matter, and dark energy. Edwin Hubble http://magisqr.com/001Bio. Info – QR Code 1 Before you watch the video, here are a couple of questions to ponder or discuss:
1. Do you think evidence for the Big Bang shows that the universe was created? Explain. 2. Do you think the Catholic Church supports the Big Bang Theory? Explain.
8 FNTC – The Big Bang Theory and the Modern Universe
Presentation:
A. The Big Bang Theory (21:30 ~ 32:35):
Section 1. As noted above, Fr. Georges Lemaître is credited with proposing his expanding universe hypothesis to Einstein. Lemaître, in addition to being a Catholic priest, was a theoretical physicist specializing in cosmology (the science of the origin and the development of the universe) with a Ph.D. from M.I.T. As such, he was well aware of Einstein’s famous “Theory of Relativity.” They were, in fact, contemporaries and met on several occasions. Einstein said Lemaître’s math was “elegant (correct) but he was not ready to buy into his expanding universe physics.
Lemaître initially published his theory in 1927 and included what would later become Hubble’s Law. He discovered a precursor to Hubble’s constant. Two years later, Hubble would produce precise observational data confirming Lemaître’s theory and revising the value of his constant. In 1933 Einstein and Lemaître traveled together to California for a series of seminars. In the end, and with the help of Hubble’s findings, Einstein was convinced that Lemaître was correct in his theory and he publicly endorsed it. Einstein then integrated it into his General Theory of Relativity (GTR).
From all of this comes Lemaître’s conclusion that an initial “Creation-like” event must have taken place. He proposed that the universe came from an initial point that he referred to as the “Primeval Atom”.. It would later become known as, “The Big Bang Theory” (thanks to Fred Hoyle, initially a proponent of a “steady state” universe).
Take out a rubber band and put it next to a ruler. Now draw a dot on the rubber band at point zero; another dot at one inch; and yet Link to rubber another dot at two inches. Now, take the rubber band and hold it with your left hand at point zero. With your right hand stretch the rubber band video – band so that the dot that was at two inches is now at four inches. http://magisqr.com/002QR2
9 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Evidently the dot that was at two inches from origin has expanded another two inches (to the four inch mark). But notice that the dot which was at the one inch mark has only moved to the two inch mark (an expansion of only one inch).Thus, if space as a whole is growing like a balloon (or like our rubber band), the further away a galaxy is from our galaxy (at point zero on the ruler), the more it expands per unit time and, the greater is its recessional velocity.
Think about this experiment on a time/velocity scale. In the same time it took the dot that moved from 1” to 2” on the ruler, the other dot moved from 2” to 4”. In other words it traveled twice the distance in exactly the same time--so its recessional velocity from the zero point was higher. That is what is happening with our galaxies in space on a much grander scale (Except for the part where someone has to hold their finger on the starting point).
According to this logic, Lemaître was able to explain the paradox which eluded Einstein – the further away a galaxy is, the greater its recessional velocity. In so doing, he showed that the universe was expanding and growing, because the spatial continuum (the Georges Lemaître space between the galaxies) is stretching and growing. http://magisqr.com/003& Albert Einstein Bios We often hear the question, “Isn’t space just an empty vacuum?”
Let us now briefly consider the proof Hubble used to substantiate that galaxies farther away were moving away faster than galaxies nearby. We have already mentioned this as “red shifting”. It is similar to something you all recognize with sound waves. Notice, that the pitch of an approaching car gets higher while the pitch of a receding car becomes lower. Something similar occurs with respect to light. Light coming from an object (like a star or galaxy) approaching us will have a higher frequency, and will shift toward the blue end of the spectrum. Conversely, light coming from an object moving away from us will have a lower frequency, and will shift toward the red end of the spectrum – a red shift. The greater the red shift, the faster the object is moving away from us. Hubble discovered that the further a galaxy is from us, the greater its red shift, and as we just saw, the greater its red shift, the faster it is moving from us. Lemaître’s expanding universe theory – and even his mathematics – explained Hubble’s discoveries – almost perfectly.
10 FNTC – The Big Bang Theory and the Modern Universe
The BIG BANG Theory
13.8 Billion Years Ago, The Universe Begins Expansion
Fr. Georges Lemaitre
Hubble Redshifts
COBE and WMAP Satellites
Is there any other evidence for “The Big Bang?” As we previously noted, the discovery of a universal background radiation by Penzias and Wilson is very important. This radiation is uniformly distributed throughout the universe, which means that it had to occur at or near the Big Bang itself. By measuring the temperature of the radiation, we not only verify the Big Bang, but can calculate the age of the universe. The 2.7 ͦ Kelvin (above absolute zero) temperature points to a universe which is approximately 13.8 billion QR16 years old. This is also confirmed by more recent data from the two Penzias and COBE satellites, the WMAP satellite, and the Planck satellite. Wilson http:// brief biosmagisqr.com/016
B. The Modern Universe (32:35 ~ 44:40):
Section 2. You should find this next section quite fascinating – and maybe a little challenging. What is our universe made of? Well, let’s split this into the three major components of mass-energy (approximate values): 1 1) Visible Matter @ 4.9% 2) Dark Matter @ 26.8% 2 3) Dark Energy @ 68.3%
Before we go any further, let’s explain the term, “mass-energy”. You may already know this but mass 2 1and energy are essentially convertible from one to another through Einstein’s famous equation E=Mc . As an example, when two hydrogen atoms are fused together into a helium atom, it gives rise to a terrific explosion (the effect of a hydrogen—fusion--bomb). After the tremendous emission of energy from the fusion explosion, the resultant helium atom weighs slightly less (has less “rest mass” – see definition below) than the two hydrogen atoms (before the explosion). This little bit of mass gives rise to an immense amount of energy as the hydrogen is converted to helium.
Please note: As stated, science has to adjust to the newest findings. After the production of our video, data2 was received from the Planck spacecraft that confirmed the above figures. You might notice the video gives slightly different percentages. In the end, the precise numbers are less important than the math and ideas behind how this all works.
11 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
http://magisqr.com/092
Let’s now discuss the most important part of our universe – visible matter.
Visible Matter - 4.9% of the mass-energy in the universe. Visible matter emits and absorbs light (unlike dark matter), and is constituted by the following four forces:
1) Electromagnetic Force - This is the source of all electrical activity. It attracts and repels charges which creates force that can move things, change things and create light and heat. 2) Strong Nuclear Force – This force only becomes active when protons are extremely close to one another, and when it does become active, it overcomes the repelling force of two similarly charged protons, giving rise to an explosion (which is the basis for an atomic – fission – bomb). This is a major source of power for our sun. 3) Weak Force – This is the source of radioactive decay and particle decay which results in radiation. We will later see how this force is responsible for the way our universe developed. 4) Gravitational Force – This is the force of attraction between bodies in our universe. The greater the mass and the closer the proximity among these bodies, the greater the gravitational force. Since the time of Einstein, we no longer consider gravity to be a force (as Newton did). Today we know the effects of gravitation are produced by the curved geometry of the space-time continuum. The greater the curvature, the stronger the gravitational effect. Greater density of mass-energy causes greater curvature of the space-time continuum.
2) Dark Matter - 26.8% of the mass-energy of the universe. It is similar to visible matter in that its density causes curvature in the space-time continuum, giving rise to gravitational attraction. The combined effects of visible matter and dark matter keep our galaxies from flying apart -- even as the universe is expanding at an amazing rate. Since the density of both visible matter and dark matter is much higher inside galaxies than outside of them (in intergalactic space), the gravitational attraction holds the galaxies together while the space between them stretches and grows quite rapidly.
3) Dark Energy – 68.3% of the mass-energy of the universe. It is, by a wide margin, the largest single component in our universe. It gives rise to a force of repulsion within the spatial continuum which causes our universe to expand at an accelerated rate. Dark
12 FNTC – The Big Bang Theory and the Modern Universe
energy is not like dark matter. In fact, it has an opposite effect on the spatial continuum. It is like a field that attaches itself to the spatial continuum and causes it to expand (like a force of repulsion). Conversely, visible matter and dark matter cause gravitational attraction – the opposite effect.
Over a decade ago, astronomers observing the brightness of distant supernovae realized that the expansion of the universe appeared to be accelerating. They attributed the acceleration to the repulsive force associated with dark energy. In September 2012 a team of astronomers at the University of Portsmouth and LMU University Munich, determined that the likelihood of the existence of dark energy stands at 99.996% The team released their findings after two years of study and re-verification of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect; the theory that first gave credence to dark energy. Dr. Alan Guth theorized that dark energy was a very probable source of a cool inflationary period immediately after the Big Bang, which is necessary to explain the distribution of mass and galaxies (as well as several other phenomena) throughout the universe. As we shall see later, the preponderance of dark energy in our universe makes it very unlikely that the universe bounced – that is, expanding then contracting then expanding again, etc. The force of repulsion produced by so much dark energy makes it very likely that the universe will continue to expand until it reaches what is called “heat death” (further explained later on).
http://magisqr.com/089
It should be noted that some physicists doubt the existence of dark energy and say that it is just a “fudge factor” that scientists have invented to explain faster than expected expansion. Nevertheless, a sizeable majority of physicists believe that dark energy exists. If the likelihood that dark energy exists is 99.996%, which way would you bet? Exactly!.
Chapter Review: Whew, that was a pretty good load of information. Are you beginning to see what Fr. Spitzer means when he calls this a great time for seeing the evidence for God produced by science? Did you already know that the Big Bang was actually theorized by a Catholic Priest (Georges Lemaître) and that his discovery would be the key to perfecting Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity? We also learned about the importance of Red Shift and its relationship to recessional velocity. From that we learned the farther away a galaxy is from us, the faster it is receding. Imagine, we used a simple rubber band to demonstrate the important science behind this discovery.
13 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
We also learned that every galaxy in the universe is going away from every other galaxy. That shows us the universe is expanding and the fact it is expanding helps us prove there was a beginning (remember the balloon with the dots?). Then we learned about the 3 major components of our universe (visible matter, dark matter and dark energy) and what roles they play. And then there was cosmic background radiation, spread as evenly throughout the universe as peanut butter on hot toast. We hope you are beginning to see a trend here where the evidence, verifiable scientific evidence, is not disproving a creator of the universe but actually pointing to a beginning and a creation event. Though we have not yet firmly established this – stay tuned - there is much more evidence to come.
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode One, Chapter 2:
1. Explain the Big Bang.
2. Who originated the hypothesis of the Big Bang (originally the “Primeval Atom”)?
3. Why is an expanding universe important in proving there was a beginning?
4. What kind of proof is available to show the universe is expanding?
5. How did Hubble and Lemaître prove that galaxies farther away were moving faster than those closer to our Milky Way (that’s our inter-galactic zip code)?
6. How did proof of an expanding universe influence Einstein’s theory of relativity?
7. What are the three major components of our universe?
8. What is the significance of all galaxies moving away from one another?
9. Is space an empty vacuum?
Notes:
14 FNTC – The Beginning – From Space-Time Geometry Proofs
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode One Chapter 3
The Beginning – From Space-Time Geometry Proofs (47:30 ~ 63:40)
In this Chapter, we begin with Fr. Spitzer’s questions, “Was the Big Bang the beginning or was there some prior period? Did we move from an Eternal Static State to an exploding universe? Could we be part of a Multiverse or a Bouncing Universe?” We will look at the science and figure this out.
15 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Episode One, Chapter 3:
The Beginning – From Space-Time Geometry Proofs
Introduction (47:30 ~ 63:40 )
As you might have guessed from the title, we are going to look at evidence that explores three hypothetical alternatives to the Big Bang: The Eternally Static State Theory, Multiverse theories, and Bouncing Universe theories. What would these theories mean as relates to The Big Bang? Do they avoid the need for a beginning? Father Spitzer will introduce three different sets of scientific evidence that can be used to prove a beginning of physical reality itself, which comes close to implying a creation event and a transcendent creator.
Pay attention all the way to the end as the B-V-G theorem will be introduced late in this chapter. This is an exceedingly important and recent (2003) scientific proof.
Before you watch, here are some questions to consider:
1.1. Are you awareaware of of any any theory(ies) theory(ies) offered offered by by scientists scientists as asalternatives alternatives to the to theBig BigBang Bang Theory? 2.2. If yes, whywhy dodo youyou think think these these theories theories were were put put forward forward in thein the first first place place and whatand what evidence is used to support them? evidence is used to support them?
Presentation:
Section 1. Three Hypothetical Alternatives to the Big Bang (47:30 ~ 50:57)
Let’s deal with the possibility of a Past Eternal Static State first. Remember, at one time, Einstein thought that our universe was eternally static, i.e. not expanding or contracting. We know better than that today. A twist on the idea of a permanently static universe is a universe that was static for an infinite amount of time into the past and then suddenly exploded and starting expanding. Physicists call this the “cosmic egg” theory. There is no scientific evidence to support this theory, and a good deal of evidence against it. First, sound logic suggests that it is impossible for something to be stable for an infinite period of time (i.e. permanently stable) and then to expand suddenly (in a Big Bang). Think about it. If something were to remain static for an infinite period of time, it would have to be perfectly stable. However, if that static state is to decay so that it can give rise to a big bang expansion, it can’t be perfectly stable. It must be what physicists call “metastable” – that is, unstable enough to decay and change a tiny bit at a time. In other words, this theory is a logical contradiction because it requires that the universe be both perfectly stable and unstable at the same time! Secondly, from the vantage point of physics, Alexander Vilenkin and Audrey Methani have shown that
16 FNTC – The Beginning – From Space-Time Geometry Proofs
this theory runs contrary to expected quantum effects. This makes the infinitely static hypothesis highly unlikely.
Moving on to the “Multiverse” theories, let’s answer the most obvious question first. What exactly is a multiverse? There are many multiverse theories. For example, Andre Linde proposed a “Chaotic Inflationary Multiverse” which he believed might allow the past to be infinite. This theory describes a recurring cosmic event whereby bubble universes are created and belched out into the multiverse on a continuing basis. In this theory, our universe is but one of many bubble universes. Though this theory is completely hypothetical, it is possible3, and as such, we need to give it due consideration. Can the multiverse be eternal? As we shall see, the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof (explained below) shows that all hypothetical multiverses cannot be eternal into the past – they must all have a definitive beginning.
The “Bouncing Universe” is another theory being proposed. The hypothesis runs basically like this: the universe expands to a maximum limit (when gravitational attraction causes it to stop and “reverse course”). At this juncture, the universe begins to collapse and moves ever more rapidly to what might be called a “big crunch,” after which a bounce occurs, allowing for another expansionary phase. According to this theory, the universe could have been bouncing for an infinite time – seemingly averting a beginning. As we will see below, there is a virtual mountain of evidence against this theory – the preponderance of dark energy in our universe (see above), the high entropy of a collapsing universe, and the exceedingly improbable event of low entropy at the Big Bang (and every following bounce) – to mention just a few. For these reasons, most physicists reject the bouncing universe. I know this sounds like a bunch of big words strung together, but we will try to make sense of them below. For the moment, suffice it to say that there are very good reasons to reject the bouncing universe.
Can science address multiverses and bouncing universes? Can we get evidence for these alternative theories when they are purely hypothetical? Yes we can. Is it possible to provide scientific evidence (empirical data) to show a beginning of something which is purely hypothetical? As a matter of fact, it is possible. We shall soon see how the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof and the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) are capable of showing a beginning – even of hypothetical entities.
We are sometimes asked why we take time to address such speculative theories. We have to take into consideration that many of these theories come from highly respected scientists who deserve having their theories examined.
3 There are some top physicists who do not believe that the multiverse is a viable theory. For example, Thomas Banks wrote a guest post to the blog of Sean Carroll (who is a proponent of the multiverse) and seriously critiques the possibility on physical grounds. Interestingly, Carroll did not refute his position. See “Thomas Banks Contra Eternal Inflation in preposterousuniverse.com posted by Sean Carroll (http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/10/24/guest-post-tom-banks-contra-eternal-inflation- 2/ ).
17 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Some of you may be thinking that we have not covered a new theory for explaining the universe – the recent discovery of the Higgs-Boson, nicknamed the “God Particle”. As soon as the discovery was confirmed, we began receiving emails claiming that the Higgs-Boson proved God did not create the universe. Some even thought that this discovery disproved God’s existence (see above Chapter 1 on the limits of science). It proved nothing of the sort. The Higgs-Boson does not explain the beginning of the universe, the expansion of space-time (the Big Bang), the low entropy of our universe at the Big Bang, the laws and constants of our universe at the Big Bang, and the initial periods after the Big Bang. Rather, the Higgs-Boson indicates the presence of a Higgs Field which emerges after the Big Bang. This field slows the emergent energy from the Big Bang, giving it rest mass (the quality of particles like protons and neutrons that have atomic weight). Though this theory is the last step in the grand puzzle of elementary particle theory, it is certainly not a theory about creation or a replacement for God. This particle is one of the results of creation, not a cause of creation. As always, it is our intent to objectively point out the latest scientific evidence, which, so far, seems to point to a beginning – not only of our universe – but of physical reality itself.
We said above that there are two ways of showing a beginning of our universe, and even a multiverse – the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof (which is a space-time geometry proof), and the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). Let’s now turn to the first kind of evidence – space-time geometry proofs.
We will delve into the other two proofs (shown on the slide below), entropy and anthropic coincidences, in our next chapter
Three Kinds of Evidence for Intelligent Creation
1. Space- Time Geometry Proofs 2. Entropy nd (Borde -Vilenkin-Guth Proof) (2 Law of Thermodynamics)
3. Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-tuning of Initial Conditions & Universal Constants)
Space-Time Geometry Proofs: (50:57 ~ 63:40)
18 FNTC – The Beginning – From Space-Time Geometry Proofs
What in the world is space-time geometry? Well, it isn’t geometry you do on a spacecraft. You can Google the term and get thousands of pages of references or we can keep it a bit more basic. Remember that space-time can stretch, grow, and even reconfigure itself according to the density of mass-energy within it. The presence, arrangement, and density of mass-energy gives rise to geometrical configurations of the spatial continuum. The dynamics and properties of these geometries enable us to predict not only a beginning of our universe, but even multiverses – all multiverses.
Ok, let’s get down to it. How does a space-time geometry proof work? The typical form of a space-time geometry proof is, “if condition x, condition y, and condition z are real in the universe, then there must be a beginning of that universe.” Normally, one must prove the “if” (the major premise), using math and logic. Then the minor premise must be proven, that is, using observations or experiments based on observations, to prove these conditions actually exist in our universe. If both the major and minor premises can be proven correct, then the conclusion would naturally be considered correct. (Please see
SPACE-TIME GEOMETRY PROOFS
1. The 1993 Borde-Vilenkin Proof
(five conditions)
2. The 1999 Comprehensive Modeling of Inflationary Universes/Multiverses (Alan Guth). 3. The 2003 Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof (AKA - The B-V-G Theorem) – only one condition; physics of the universe is not relevant.
Drs. Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin and Alan Guth did exactly that with their B-V-G theorem (proof).4 Without going into all of the details, these three scientists (individually and in teams) developed two proofs of a beginning not only of our universe, but multiverses and string universes5. They did this over a period of ten years beginning in
4 A theorem is a proof – much like you learned in geometry. This should be distinguished from a “theory” which unifies particular observations to yield scientific descriptions and explanations. A “theorem” (proof) is very certain while a theory can always be modified by new discoveries.
5 String theory is one of the candidates for explaining quantum cosmology—where gravity is quantized (instead of arising out of the geometry of the spatial continuum). This quantized gravity interacts strongly with the other universal forces—the electro-magnetic force, strong nuclear force, and the weak force in a unified field. This theory allows the universe to exist in the Planck era prior to the Big Bang. One of the derivatives of string theory is M Theory, which is eleven-dimensional and allows for esoteric universal theories in eleven-dimensional space. This is what is meant by “universes in the higher dimensional space of string theory.” Inasmuch as these universes are expansive, they too would be subject to the BVG proof—in which case they would have to have a beginning.
19 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
1993. In 1999, Dr. Alan Guth did extensive modeling of all universe theories and proved that in every case where a universe was expanding, it would have to have a beginning.
In 2003 Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth came together to develop the most elegant and vastly applicable proof – now called “the B-V-G QR6 – Borde – Theorem.” They showed that every universe or multiverse having Vilenkin – http://magisqr.com/006 an average Hubble expansion greater than zero must have a limit Guth bios to past time – a beginning. “Average Hubble expansion” means “the rate of expansion of a universe or multiverse as a whole.” If you are interested in the six steps of this proof, see Episode Two, Chapter 1 or go to QR32 below. It is really not that complicated, so you might be able to explain this proof to other people if you get a good sense of the six steps – which we will discuss in the next episode.
As we saw above, our universe is inflationary, so it must have a Hubble expansion greater than zero. So too must every multiverse. Why? Because every multiverse must be inflationary – without inflation a multiverse is impossible. Hence, all multiverses must be greater than zero. Believe it or not, all bouncing universes must also have an average Hubble expansion greater than zero, so they too must have a beginning. As a matter of fact, this theorem accounts for modern cosmologies, including universes in the higher dimensional space of string theory, and even bouncing universes in the higher dimensional space of M-Theory. As you can see, it is vastly applicable to virtually all cosmologies because it has only one condition – that the average rate of expansion of that universe or multiverse be greater than zero.
There is one exception to this – the so-called “eternally static universe theorem.” If something is eternally static then it is not expanding, and so it seems like this possibility could avert the need for a beginning. However, as we saw above, this is a logical contradiction because it requires that the universe be at once perfectly stable (in order to be in a static state for an infinite amount of time) and unstable (so that it can decay and then expand and explode at the Big Bang). Such contradictions cannot be taken very seriously. Furthermore, there are quantum problems with this theory detailed by Vilenkin and Mithani (see above).
20 FNTC – The Beginning – From Space-Time Geometry Proofs
Conclusions of the B-V-G Proof
1. There is only ONE condition of this proof - - the average rate of the expansion of the universe is greater than zero. 2. The B-V-G Proof applies to our universe, all multiverses, and all bouncing universes (including those in the higher dimensional space of string theory)
Therefore, the B-V-G Proof strongly indicates an absolute beginning of all physical reality
So let’s review the proof. The major premise of their theorem runs as follows -- if any universe, multiverse, or bouncing universe has an average Hubble expansion greater than zero, then that universe must have a limit to its past time (a beginning). This is proved by the six logical steps in Episode Two, Chapter 1 or see QR32. QR32 6 The minor premise shows that our universe, all multiverses, Steps of B-‐V-‐ http://magisqr.com/032 bouncing universes, and even string universes in higher G Theorem dimensional space must all have an average expansion rate greater than zero. This is true for the reasons given above.
The conclusion will now be pretty evident – our universe, every hypothetical multiverse, every hypothetical bouncing universe, and every string universe must have a beginning.
By now you will have a pretty good sense of the consequences of proving a beginning to virtually all major known cosmologies – first, prior to the beginning of our universe – and all the other cosmologies mentioned above – physical reality would have been nothing. Secondly, if we don’t sneak something into nothing, then nothing can only do nothing. Therefore, physical reality could not have moved itself from nothing to something. So, where does that leave us? It seems very likely that something else – something transcendent – would have to have created physical reality out of nothing. This we call a Creator or God.
By the way, the B-V-G theorem has withstood scientific scrutiny for more than a decade and despite efforts to find holes in it, no physically realistic alternative has been found. With all this evidence, some of you might be wondering why some very intelligent physicists claim to be atheists. As we saw above, this atheism cannot be justified on scientific grounds, because scientific methodology must be based on observational
21 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
evidence. Furthermore, the evidence for a beginning of physical reality from the Borde- Vilenkin-Guth proof militates against this conclusion. So why would scientists be atheists? It cannot be for scientific reasons, and so it must be for personal reasons. Some scientists simply prefer or choose to believe that there is no God in the face of the above evidence. Indeed, they bend over backwards to propose incredible theories to get themselves out of the above conclusion – so much so that it is easier to believe in an unseen God than to believe in these highly unlikely speculative alternative hypotheses.
As we shall see below, there are five major personal reasons why any individual might choose to believe in atheism (see Episode Four, Chapter 3). Scientists are no different from other individuals – they choose to believe in atheism for non-scientific, personal reasons.
Chapter Review: In this chapter we learned that there are numerous alternative theories about the possibility of pre-Big Bang scenarios. We talked about multiverses, bouncing universes, static universes, and even universes in the higher dimensional space of string (M) theory. It was noted that all of these theories are completely speculative. That is, there is no evidence for any of them.
We learned that the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth proof requires that all of these pre-Big Bang scenarios have a beginning. This led us to conclude that physical reality – as far as we currently know – very likely had a beginning. When we combine this conclusion with the consequences of a beginning of physical reality (learned in Chapter 1 above), it seemed both reasonable and responsible to believe in a transcendent Creator.
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode One, Chapter 3:
1. What does the term, “eternally static universe” mean? What are the alternatives?
2. What is meant by a “multiverse”?
3. What is meant by a “bouncing universe”?
4. How can a balloon be used to simulate space-time geometry?
5. How many conditions are required in the B-V-G Proof?
6. What is the major premise of the B-V-G Theorem?
7. What observations are used to prove the B-V-G Theorem?
8. If there really is a beginning to physical reality, what are the consequences?
9. If there is so much evidence for a Creator, why do you think some scientists choose to declare themselves as atheists?
22 FNTC – The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof for a Beginning of Expanding Universes
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Two Chapter 1
The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof for a Beginning of Expanding Universes (01:00 ~ 23:00)
In this Chapter, Fr. Spitzer does a brief review of our last chapter and then launches into six steps to explain the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth (B-V-G) Proof. You will learn about the far-reaching implications of its application. This proof was developed in 2003. Off we go…
23 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Episode Two, Chapter 1:
The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof for a Beginning of Expanding Universes
Introduction (01:00 ~ 23:00) In order to learn the six steps of the B-V-G Proof, we are going to learn about the importance of recessional velocities. We will discover that these recessional velocities are increasing and we will see how that affects relative velocities and future relative velocities. We will give you an example of how you can get a speeding ticket for a relative velocity of only 20mph. Father Spitzer shows us why Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth confirm that, at one time, everything was moving at the speed of light (i.e., the fastest speed in the universe) and, just a split second before that, there was nothing.
Before you watch, here are some pre-viewing questions to contemplate or discuss:
1) Of all of the scientific evidence you have ever seen offered for the beginning of our universe, from anywhere, which do you consider the strongest? Why?
2) If there is evidence for God, why do you think we need faith? Does scientific evidence for a Creator answer all of our questions about God and a life beyond?
Presentation:
Section 1. Six Steps of the Borde–Vilenkin–Guth (B-V-G) Proof (03:08 ~ 23:00). The following six logical steps can help us better understand the B-V-G Proof. You can watch Fr. Spitzer walk you through the six steps at QR32. You can also watch Dr. Vilenkin explaining this at QR7: QR32 – 6 QR 7
Steps to BVG Vilenkin http://magisqr.com/032 http://magisqr.com/007Video clip
Step One: The farther a galaxy is from our galaxy, the faster its recessional velocity (its speed going away from an observer). This first step was discovered by Fr. Georges Lemaître. Before we begin, we must remember the “strange fact” that Lemaître, Hubble, and Einstein – among others – were trying to explain – that the farther a galaxy is from us, the greater (faster) its recessional velocity. Lemaître was able to explain this by theorizing that galaxies were not moving away from each other in pre-fixed space, but rather that the space between the galaxies was stretching and growing! This led him to conclude that there must have been some point in the past where the universe was at a minimal point – like a “cosmic atom.” This minimum point would constitute a beginning of our universe – the point of the Big Bang.
24 FNTC – The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof for a Beginning of Expanding Universes
In order to understand this, go back to our example of the rubber band given in the previous episode (see QR2). As you might recall, we put three dots on a rubber band, one at zero, one at one inch, and one at two inches. When we stretched the dot which was at two inches to the four inch mark, we noticed that the dot at the one inch mark only moved to the two inch mark – only half as far as the more distant one. Why did this happen? Because there is twice as much rubber band between zero and two as between zero and one. Since there is twice as much rubber band to stretch and grow, we would expect that the growth of the further point (at the two inch mark) be twice as great as the one at the nearer point (the one inch mark).
Now, once again, imagine that the rubber band is like space and the dots are like galaxies. If there is twice as much space to stretch and grow, then the recessional velocity of the farther galaxy will be twice as great as that of the nearer galaxy. Lemaître was right – the farther a galaxy is from us, the greater will be its recessional velocity. Why? We must remember the strange fact that galaxies are not moving away from each other in pre-fixed space – but instead, the space between them is stretching and growing! This is the very novel – and true – dimension of Lemaître’s theory of an expanding universe.
This is why physicists have analogized the universe to a balloon with dots on it. As the balloon expands, the dots move farther and farther away from each other. If we circle one dot on the balloon and call it our galaxy, then we notice that the dots that are farther away expand twice as much per unit time. Another example of this would be a loaf of raisin bread growing and rising in the oven. All of the raisins start in close proximity in a wad of dough but all grow away from one another as the dough expands. The bread is like our universe, the raisins (representing galaxies) move farther away from each other as the dough (which represents space) stretches and grows. The ones closest to the outside move the farthest away from their starting point, while those near the center hardly move at all.
Step Two: The further we go into the future, the greater recessional velocities will be. Drs. Borde, Vilenkin and Guth realized that Lemaître’s discovery also applies to time. Think about this for a moment – our universe is expanding. Therefore, as we move into the future, there is more space between galaxies. Now remember – the more space there is between galaxies, the more space there is to stretch and grow. Thus, we would expect that the recessional velocity between the galaxies would increase as the space between them increases. So, what does this mean? If the recessional velocities of farther galaxies are greater than nearer ones, and if every second the universe expands, galaxies are getting farther away from us, then every second the universe expands, the recessional velocity will be greater. The further we move into the future, the greater the recessional velocity of galaxies will be.
25 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Step Three: As recessional velocities increase, relative velocities decrease. Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth also realized that the greater the recessional velocity of galaxies, the slower the relative velocities of projectiles (like rockets) will be. Now this is important – “relative velocity” refers in this case to the velocity of a projectile (like a rocket) moving toward an object (like a galaxy) moving away from it.
Let’s walk through this thought together. Imagine a rocket ship traveling in space. Let’s suppose it is traveling away from us at 100,000 miles per hour (mph) toward a nearby galaxy that is traveling away from us at 25,000 mph. If there are alien observers on a planet in that galaxy watching the rocket ship approach them, at what speed would they measure its approach? Since they are moving away from the rocket at 25,000 mph, you would subtract that from the 100,000 mph of the rocket’s velocity moving toward them. Thus, they would see it approaching them at 75,000 mph. This would be the relative velocity experienced by the observer in the “receding” galaxy.
Now let’s suppose there are aliens on a planet in a galaxy twice as far away. Recall that such a galaxy is moving away from the rocket at twice the velocity as the nearer galaxy (see Step One above). Thus, their recessional velocity away from the rocket ship would be 50,000 mph. So at what speed do they see the rocket approaching them? What is the rocket’s velocity relative to them? You probably got it – 50,000 mph – the rocket’s velocity (100,000 mph) minus the recessional velocity of their galaxy (50,000 mph). So, the greater the recessional velocity of the galaxy, the slower the relative velocity of our rocket ship.
Here is a real life example. Suppose there is a police cruiser ahead of you travelling at 60 mph (the speed limit) down the freeway. Suppose you (unknowingly) are approaching the police cruiser at 80 mph. Now imagine that the police cruiser had a rear facing radar (as many of them do), what would the police radar clock your speed as? You got it – 20 mph – your velocity relative to that of the receding police cruiser. Effectively, you would get a ticket for travelling at a relative velocity of 20 mph.
Before we leave this step, recall the principle we gave above – the greater the recessional velocity of galaxies, the slower the relative velocities of projectiles (like rocket ships) moving toward them.
Step Four. As the universe moves into the future, the relative velocities of projectiles moving in it decreases. Now let’s apply the above principle about relative velocity to future time – as we saw in Step Two above. If relative velocities decrease as recessional velocities increase, and if recessional velocities increase as the universe moves into the future (Step Two above), then relative velocities must decrease as our universe moves into the future. Think about it. Recessional velocities and relative velocities are opposite – as one increases, the other decreases. As we saw in Step Two above, recessional velocities are increasing as our universe moves into the future. What must that mean about relative velocities which go in the opposite direction? You’ve got it – they must be decreasing.
26 FNTC – The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof for a Beginning of Expanding Universes
Strange as it may seem, the relative velocities of projectiles are decreasing as our universe gets older and older.
Step Five. If relative velocities are decreasing into the future, then they must have been greater in the past. As we saw in the previous step, the further our universe moves into the future, the slower the relative velocity of projectiles (like rockets). All we need do is reverse this principle. If relative velocities are decreasing into the future, they must have been greater in the past. The further back in the past we go, the greater the relative velocities of projectiles would have been.
Step Six. There is a maximum possible velocity for all universes (or multiverses), and so relative velocities of projectiles must have been at that maximum limit sometime in the finite past. We will explain below why every universe or multiverse must have an upper limit to velocity. For the moment, let’s just talk about our universe. Currently, most physicists believe that the upper limit to velocity in our universe is the speed of light (300,000 kps or 186,200 mps). There is of course the possibility that scientist’s may one day discover a tachyon (a particle which can travel faster than the speed of light), but as we shall see, this does not affect the conclusion of our sixth and final step. So let’s suppose that the upper limit to velocity in our universe really is the speed of light. Recall what we said in Step Five above – relative velocities of projectiles must have been greater as they move further back into the past. Thus, as we move further and further back into our universe’s past, and the relative velocities are getting greater and greater, then at some point in the finite past, all relative velocities of projectiles would have to have been at the speed of light. What do you think? Could our universe have existed one microsecond before that time? As you correctly surmise – along with Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth, our universe could not have existed prior to that moment, because this would mean that all projectiles were travelling faster than the maximum possible velocity – an impossible scenario. So what does this mean? Our universe – and any other universe with a maximum possible velocity – must have a beginning.
As Vilenkin himself said:
“If the velocity of the space traveler relative to the spectators gets smaller and smaller into the future, then it follows that his velocity should get larger and larger as we follow his history into the past. In the limit, his velocity should get arbitrarily close to the speed of light.”6
What if scientists one day discover a tachyon (a particle capable of travelling faster than the speed of light), and this greater velocity was found to be the maximum possible
6 Borde, Arvind, Alan Guth, Alan, and Alexander Vilenkin. 2003. “Inflationary Spacetimes are Not Past-complete,” Physical Review Letters, vol.90, no.15, pp. 151301-1—151301-4.
27 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + velocity within our universe? Would such a discovery invalidate the B-V-G Proof? What do you think? You probably see the conclusion. Our universe would still have a beginning but it would be further back in the finite past. Just as the relative velocities of all projectiles reached their limit at 186,200 mph at some point in the finite past, so also would they reach their limit further back in the finite past if that limit were twice the speed of light – or three times the speed of light – or even a trillion times the speed of light. Our universe would still have to have a beginning.
Do we know if this applies to a multiverse or bouncing universe? We do. Recall from the previous episode that there can be no multiverse without inflation, and inflation entails a Hubble expansion greater than zero. Recall also that bouncing universes must have an average Hubble expansion greater than zero. And, as Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth have shown, universes in the higher dimensional space of string theory must also have an average Hubble expansion greater than zero. Thus, according to the B-V-G Proof, all of these hypothetical scenarios must also have a beginning.
You might be wondering why every universe or multiverse must have a finite upper limit to velocity. Let’s suppose that there is a universe where there is no upper limit to velocity. That would mean, in principle, that some forms of energy would be able to travel at an infinite velocity. Think about that for a moment. Suppose some forms of energy in this other hypothetical universe could travel at an infinite velocity. Where would they be? You got it – they would be everywhere in that universe simultaneously. Now this would have a curious effect, because every form of energy would have to coexist at every point in that universe simultaneously. But here is the problem – different forms of energy oppose each other – for example, protons are in opposition to electrons, matter is opposed to antimatter, etc. If all of these opposing forms of energy coexisted at every point in the universe simultaneously, the universe would be filled with contradictions – proton-electrons, matter-antimatter, etc.
This scenario is no more possible than square-circles of the same area. Do you think a square-circle (of the same area) can really exist? As you might suspect, it is intrinsically contradictory. The same holds true for all of your quantitative and qualitative characteristics – you can’t be 6’3” and 6’4” in the same respect at the same time – a cat cannot be alive and dead at the same time, and so forth. Similarly, opposed states of energy cannot coexist at the same place and time. Without an upper limit to velocity, we would be confronted with an impossible universe filled with contradictions – and inasmuch as it is impossible, it simply cannot exist.
Section 2. The Four Consequences of the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof: (20:10 – 23:00).
1. It applies to all expanding universes and multiverses (including bouncing universes in higher dimensions). 2. It does not matter what the physics of a given universe or multiverse might be. Insofar as the average Hubble expansion is greater than zero, the B-V-G Proof
28 FNTC – The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof for a Beginning of Expanding Universes
must apply, and that universe or multiverse would have to have a beginning. 3. Since there is only one condition for the proof to work (namely that the average Hubble expansion be greater than zero), and the B-V-G Proof functions independently of the physics of any given universe or multiverse, it will be very difficult to disprove. 4. The consequence is that it is quite likely that there is an absolute beginning to physical reality, and this is precisely what implies a creation by some transcendent power beyond physical reality (a Creator).
Chapter Review: We saw how the B-V-G Proof functions in six logical steps. In so doing, we learned about recessional velocities, relative velocities, maximum limits to velocity, and how the B-V-G Proof works through it all. We also saw that the simplicity of the B-V-G Proof consists in its having only one condition – namely, that the average Hubble expansion be greater than zero. This simplicity made it vastly applicable independently of the physics of any particular universe or multiverse. Furthermore, it makes it quite difficult to find exceptions to the Proof. Thus far, there appear to be no physically realistic exceptions to it. This caused Dr. Vilenkin to assert the following in 2007:
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the [B-V-G] proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe….There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”7
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Two, Chapter 1:
1) Who were the scientists who developed the B-V-G Proof?
2) How can a rubber band be used to simulate the linear relationship of the expansion going on in our universe?
3) How would you describe recessional velocity?
4) How would you describe relative velocity?
5) What are your thoughts on the simplicity of the B-V-G Proof?
6) Do you think the B-V-G Proof would have any effect on our society if it were more widely understood?
7 Alexander Vilenkin 2007 From Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York Macmillan). p 176.
29 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
7) Why do you think it is not more widely known already? What can be done about that?
8) What would be the maximum relative velocity going into the finite past?
9) Why must there be a maximum speed in the universe (currently thought to be the speed of light)?
10) What is the sole condition required for the B-V-G theorem to apply?
Notes:
30 FNTC – The evidence of a Beginning of the Universe From Entropy
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Two Chapter 2
The Evidence of a Beginning of the Universe from Entropy (23:00 ~ 40:12)
In this Chapter, Father Spitzer will walk us through the Five Steps for proving a beginning of our universe from entropy. We will see how this law of disorder can be used effectively to provide us with convincing evidence for a beginning of our universe.
31 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Episode Two, Chapter 2:
The Evidence of a Beginning of the Universe from Entropy
Introduction: (23:00 ~ 40:12)
Entropy is the central idea in “the second law of thermodynamics”. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that in isolated systems (in which there is no outside replenishing source of energy), entropy (basically, a measure of disorder) always increases or stays the same. Physical systems never get more ordered in the long term. As we shall see, entropy is a key indicator of a beginning of our universe, which is completely different from the B-V-G Proof we addressed above. Why is this important? If we have two completely different data sets (i.e. the B-V-G Proof and entropy) pointing to the same conclusion (a beginning of our universe and even physical reality), it reinforces or corroborates the conclusion – it makes the conclusion more likely. Let’s delve in to this important idea and its consequences for cosmology and a beginning.
Before you watch the video, here are a few questions to ponder.
1) What is your understanding of the term, “entropy”? 2) Do you have any inkling of how this term might be tied to the beginning of our universe?
Presentation:
1. 5 Steps from Entropy to a Beginning of the Universe. http://magisqr.com/083
1) In order for a physical system (like our universe) to work, it must be ordered. What is meant by “order of a physical system”? This may seem strange, but order refers to disequilibrium (imbalance) within a physical system. For physicists and chemists, disequilibrium is something positive, because it enables physical systems to do something.
By now, you are probably thinking, “How about an example”. Did you ever have a wind-up toy when you were a child? Remember how you could wind the toy soldier up with the key in his back, and this would wind up a coil or a spring? How could we describe this in the above terms? You are creating disequilibrium
32 FNTC – The evidence of a Beginning of the Universe From Entropy
in the coil or the spring. When you released the wind-up key, what happened? The coil began to move toward what? You got it – equilibrium – it “wants” to get back to a state where the tension within the coil is fully relieved – so that it has the same potential energy everywhere. Notice also that when the coil is moving from disequilibrium (order) to equilibrium (disorder) the toy soldier can walk around – do some productive work. Finally, notice that when the coil has reached equilibrium, the toy soldier cannot do any more work. It is used up or run down. We call this a state of “maximum entropy” or a state of “maximum disorder” where the system cannot do any more productive work. If the system is to be “revived” so that it can do some work again, someone will have to wind up the key – produce some more disequilibrium (order), and then allow the system to reach a state of equilibrium once more.
Why is this important? Because in the standard Big Bang model, our universe can be considered a physical system – which needs disequilibrium (order) within it to do productive work. We will discuss this in step four below. For the moment, what is important to see is that every physical system –including our universe needs order (disequilibrium) within it to do work. If it does not have this order, we say it is completely run down and has reached a state of maximum entropy.
2) Every time a physical system does some work, it will lose a little bit of its order— it will become a little more disordered (entropy). When a system does work, it runs down and become a little less capable of doing work. The system is losing its disequilibrium and capacity for work.
3) The Process of physical systems becoming more disordered (entropy) is irreversible. An example of this would be playing a game of pool. Fifteen balls are racked in a triangular shape and a player “breaks” the racked balls using a cue ball. The balls, typically, move from a state of disequilibrium – ordered distribution (compacted in a triangular configuration) to a state of equilibrium – random distribution – spread throughout the table. When we hit the cue ball at the racked balls, we expect them to move from their compact state to a more random one. However, what would you say would be the odds of a player, on the very next shot, hitting the balls just right so they would go back to exactly their arrangement before the QR10 – Billiard Balls “break shot”? If you saw that happen, you would returning to the – rack have to be totally amazed as that is highly Antihttp://magisqr.com/010-‐entropy unlikely. A system simply does not become more ordered over time.
We can also return to our example of the toy soldier. We are not surprised when the coil moves from disequilibrium to equilibrium; but what would be the odds of the toy soldier moving from a state of equilibrium (a wound down coil) to a state of disequilibrium (a wound up coil) all by itself? If it did that, you would be, again, amazed.
33 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Therefore, it is exceedingly, exceedingly improbable that a physical system will move from a state of disorder to order – and even if this statistical aberration were to occur, it certainly would not recur over the long term. Entropy (the movement toward disorder – equilibrium) is basically irreversible.
4) If the universe is an isolated system (which is thought to be the case in a standard big bang model) and it has been performing work (such as stars burning) for an infinite time, then it should have reached maximum entropy today. Our universe, as a whole, is an isolated physical system. Remember this means that there is nothing outside of it to give it additional order – like my hand winding the key on the toy soldier. The work being performed in our universe includes burning stars, planets forming, and volcanoes erupting, etc. Notice what is going on – the very hot stars are situated in very cold space – and so the universe is in a state of disequilibrium (order). Yet as the stars burn (and move toward a state of equilibrium), the universe irreversibly loses a little bit of its disequilibrium (its potential to do work).
If this process had been going on for an infinite amount of time, the universe would have reached thermodynamic equilibrium – the same temperature everywhere – by now. When all the heat of the stars is distributed throughout the huge amounts of cold space, the universe would be essentially frozen – incapable of doing anything.
5) However, our universe has very low entropy today – the stars are still burning and have lots of nuclear fuel, volcanoes are still erupting, and physicists are still thinking about it. Therefore, the universe could not have existed for an infinite time – if it had, it would be completely “run down” today (what physicists call “heat death”). What does this mean? The universe could only have existed for a finite period of time – it had to have a beginning.
34 FNTC – The evidence of a Beginning of the Universe From Entropy
Five Steps from entropy to a Beginning
1. Useful work must be produced by ordered physical systems (disordered or random systems can’t do anything) 2. Every time work is done, a physical system moves slightly from order to disorder (it loses a little bit of its order) 3. Disordered systems do not move back spontaneously to ordered systems (It is highly, highly improbable--like the pool table analogy in step 3 below); thus, entropy is irreversible. 4. If our universe is an isolated physical system and it has existed for an infinite time, it would be at maximum entropy today (Maximum disorder = incapable of doing anything).
5. But, in fact, our universe has very low entropy (e.g., stars burning etc.)
Therefore, our universe has not existed for an infinite time. It had a beginning
Additional Conclusions from Entropy:
Entropy can reveal more than a beginning of our universe. Every physical system – our universe, other universes, and even a multiverse must obey the second law of thermodynamics, because entropy is not a law which applies to our universe alone, but to every physical system. It is not only true because it occurs in our universe, but because it is statistically (mathematically) required. Order is always far more improbable than disorder – no matter where the order is found.
Einstein was so convinced of this that he believed that if every other physical law were changed, the one law left standing for all physical systems would be entropy. He phrased it as follows:
A law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. [Entropy] is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.8
Do you see the significance of this kind of evidence? It has the same kind of vast applicability as the B-V-G Proof – because it can apply to every physical system for purely statistical (mathematical) reasons.
8 Holton and Elkana 1997. p. 227.
35 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
But entropy does not stop there. In addition to implying a beginning of other hypothetical universes, multiverses, and other possible universal configurations, it virtually rules out a bouncing universe. Remember a bouncing universe is one that expands, then contracts, then re-expands and re-contracts, etc. At one time, some physicists thought that a bounce might be able to produce a “restart” of low entropy (high order). But physicist Roger Penrose ruled that out by showing that the odds of getting low entropy 123 by pure chance at a bounce (and at the beginning of our universe) is 1010 to one against – which is so exceedingly improbable that it is about the same odds as a monkey typing the corpus (body of work) of Shakespeare by pure chance – see below 123 “anthropic coincidences”. This number, 1010 , is called the Penrose Number.
Furthermore, physicists such as Penrose and Jacob Bekenstein showed that entropy increased enormously during a collapse. Here’s a point which Fr. Spitzer did not bring up in the video but may help you see the significance of entropy. Thomas Banks and Willy Fischler showed the high likelihood that a collapsing universe would lead to a “black crunch” where the universe would suffer immediate heat death (completely run down) before it even reached the bounce.9 In short, entropy put most of the nails into the coffin of the bouncing universe hypothesis.
Conclusion:
Entropy is our second piece of evidence showing a beginning not only of our universe, but of physical systems and the bouncing universe. It is like the B-V-G Proof in its vast applicability. Remember what we said above – if we have two kinds of evidence based on two distinct sets of data converging on the same conclusion (a beginning of our universe, and even physical reality itself), it makes the conclusion stronger. When we combine the B-V-G Proof with entropy evidence, it is highly probable that our universe – and other physical systems (including other universes and multiverses) -- had a beginning.
Chapter Review:
We learned that entropy is the central idea of “the second law of thermodynamics” and refers to the process of every physical system moving from a state of order to disorder when performing work. Systems have to be ordered to do work but when they do work, they get less ordered. This process is irreversible. If our universe were infinite in time it would be reduced to a frozen wasteland. Since it is not, it must have existed for only a finite period of time, implying a beginning.
We also saw that entropy has vast applicability because it is based on the statistical (mathematical) law that order is far more improbable than disorder. Therefore, as Einstein implied, entropy will apply to virtually every physical system. In today’s terms, that would mean multiverses and especially bouncing universes. With respect to this
9 Physics students who are interested in the “black crunch” may want to read the online article of Banks and Fischler. See Thomas Banks and Willy Fischler 2002 “Black Crunch” in Cornell University’s High Energy Physics Library (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0212113 ).
36 FNTC – The evidence of a Beginning of the Universe From Entropy
final point, current research on entropy and universal collapses pretty much rules out a bouncing universe.
Finally, we learned that the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof combined with this new evidence stemming from entropy creates a very formidable case for a beginning. Though some physicists have tried to get around this evidence, their theories are so speculative (and physically unlikely) that they have not “gone mainstream” within the physics community. With so much evidence coming from B-V-G and entropy (and more to follow from “fine- tuning of universal constants) we can be assured that it is both reasonable and responsible to believe in a beginning of our universe. Additionally, since both kinds of evidence are so vastly applicable, we can also reasonably believe that physical reality has a beginning as well.
QR9 – Penrose and http://magisqr.com/009Tolman bios
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Two, Chapter 2:
1) What is a longer name for entropy (the formal name)?
2) How would you describe entropy?
3) What are the odds against our universe having low entropy? (Hint, this is the “Penrose Number”).
4) Can entropy be reversed?
5) How would entropy weigh against the universe being infinite into the past?
6) If the universe is not infinite into the past, what would that mean?
7) Why do most physicists believe that entropy rules out a bouncing universe?
Notes:
37 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Two Chapter 3
The Fine Tuning of Initial Conditions and Universal Constants (40:12 ~ 1:03:45)
In this Chapter, opens with Fr. Spitzer stating, “If we can find no explanation for the necessity of the conditions and constants of our universe being as they are, then it may be more reasonable and responsible to believe that there is an intelligent designer of our universe than it is not to believe in that creator.” You might note, this is the third independent set of scientific data that points to a Creator.
38 FNTC – The Fine Tuning of Initial Conditions and Universal Constants
Episode Two, Chapter 3: The Fine Tuning of Initial Conditions and Universal Constants
Introduction (40:12 ~ 1:03:45): Thus far, we have seen evidence from Entropy and from Space Time Geometry Proofs that there is, more than likely, a transcendent Creator. Let’s pick up a new thread and see where it leads us. In this chapter, Father Spitzer will be presenting a whole new set of evidence for “fine-tuning” from “anthropic coincidences”. You might feel a little lost, but this is actually quite simple if we take one step at a time. We are talking about the best scientific evidence on how we humans, and everything else in the universe, came to be.
Before you Watch, here is a another question for you to ponder: Do you think it is reasonable and responsible to believe in a Creator if there is no other natural explanation for the constants of our universe being what they are?
Presentation:
Section 1. What is the meaning of “fine-tuning” and “anthropic coincidence”? (40:28 ~ 43:00)
Before we begin, we need to define some terms. Let’s start with “fine-tuning.” Fine- tuning is a term referring to the remarkable coincidence of initial conditions and universal constants being precisely what they need to be for life to develop in the universe. Anthropic coincidence refers to the extreme improbability of this fine- tuning at the Big Bang.
What does “anthropic” mean? Well, you have probably figured it out by now. Anthropic means, “capable of sustaining life, particularly intelligent life”. So, the term “anthropic coincidences” refers to an entire array of highly improbable conditions necessary for the origination, development and continuity of life forms (that would include us).
We will show the reasonableness of belief not only in a transcendent Creator, but a highly intelligent one. As you shall see, this evidence will require an answer to one major question -- is it really more difficult to believe in an intelligent Creator than to believe that all of these anthropic coincidences occurred by pure chance or through a multiverse? A Creator may be the more believable of those choices.
39 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Anthropic Coincidences
Definition:
“Anthropic Coincidence” - A highly, highly improbable
condition of the universe necessary for the origination
and development of life forms.
Section 2. Universal Constants at the Big Bang (43:00 ~ 1:02:00).
We are going to be looking at “fine-tuning” at the Big Bang. Why? Because the Big Bang is a barrier to causation. It represents a “disconnect” from anything that might have preceded it. Why is this so important? Because we don’t want someone to say to us later on – “Perhaps there is some natural cause of this fine-tuning that we don’t know of yet.” Our response is very simple – “There was no natural cause prior to this event, because the Big Bang presents a barrier to causation. If there was anything prior to the Big Bang (and there may not have been – as many physicists believe10), then it would have been causally disconnected from any activity after the Big Bang.” This means no one can appeal to a prior natural cause of the anthropic coincidences given below.
Since we cannot appeal to a prior natural cause of anthropic coincidences, we have only two options -- either believe in an intelligent Creator or believe in a multiverse (which is “unseen” and “unproven”). We will discuss this second option below.
There are two kinds of anthropic coincidences – those that concern the initial conditions of our universe at the Big Bang and those that concern the values of universal constants at the Big Bang. Let’s begin with the first – initial conditions.
The most important initial condition of our universe at the Big Bang is low entropy. Recall what was said above – that low entropy is high order which is necessary for a
10 Recall from above that some physicists have speculated that there might have been a multiverse or a bouncing universe prior to the Big Bang and our universe. Though this is possible, there is no evidence for it, and so many physicists believe that the Big Bang was the beginning. If the Big Bang really was the beginning, then there was no physical reality prior to it – physical reality itself would have been nothing. Recall also that even if there was a multiverse or bouncing universe prior to the Big Bang, they too would have to have had a beginning (according to the BVG Proof), and so we concluded that there is a strong likelihood that physical reality has a beginning no matter how it is configured – as a multiverse, a bouncing universe, or just our universe.
40 FNTC – The Fine Tuning of Initial Conditions and Universal Constants
physical system to perform work. This work includes the development and sustenance of life forms. In other words, low entropy at the Big Bang is necessary for life forms.
Oxford physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose calculated the odds of a universe blossoming into existence with entropy as low as ours. He concluded that the odds 123 against it are 1010 to one. Do you recognize the double exponent?
Anthropic Coincidences – Improbability of Low Entropy
Roger Penrose – “Low entropy at the BIG BANG is highly improbable at 10123 to one against” 10
More zeroes than our solar system can hold if printed in 10 point type (like this) on 8 ½” x 11” paper
If you printed this result on 8 ½” x 11 ½” paper in 10 point type (this is 10 point type) it would take more than the space of our solar system to hold all of the paper. Isn’t this stretching the imagination past the point of credulity to believe this was an accident? This is far higher than the odds of a monkey randomly tapping the keys of a typewriter hacking out the entire work of Shakespeare in a single attempt. If you return after a couple of weeks to the monkey’s abode and discovered Macbeth, Hamlet, etc. in perfect folio condition, you might think to yourself that this is highly improbable, and you might further think that someone with a good knowledge of Shakespeare helped the monkey.
Here is one more example of how unlikely low entropy at the Big Bang really is. At 123 1010 to one against, it would be like picking the winning lottery number, at 44 million to one against, 44,000,000 times in a row. I’d be pretty happy with one. Two would be a pretty big coincidence. Anything above 2 would be considered impossible (in all reality, twice in a row would be considered impossible by nearly all scientists) and yet, here we 123 are at 1010 …that is a major anthropic coincidence.
This is exactly why the vast majority of physicists do not believe this happened by pure chance. For this reason, physicists who do not want to believe in an intelligent Creator appeal to a multiverse. It is the only other option. What do you think – pure chance, multiverse, or intelligent Creator? We’ll come back to this later.
41 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Let’s proceed to the second kind of fine-tuning – the fine-tuning of the values of universal constants at the Big Bang. Here is a handy definition for you:
Universal Constants
Definition:
“Universal Constant” A fixed number representing a limit or parameter that controls the equations of physics and the laws of nature.
Example (c=186,200 m/s)
See
There are about twenty Universal Constants that control virtually everything that is going on in our universe. A constant is a number representing a limit or a parameter. Remember, a constant is a fixed number – and is the same throughout the universe since the Big Bang. Remember also that these numbers control all the laws of nature in the universe.
So here is the big conundrum – there is very little margin for variation in the values of these constants at the Big Bang. If they were so very slightly different from where they are now, and have been since the Big Bang, life would be impossible and you would not be reading this book.
What are some of these constants? Many of them concern the four forces in our universe which we discussed in Episode One, Chapter 2 — the gravitational force, the strong nuclear force, the weak force, and the electromagnetic force. Now, let’s get to the constants themselves—they include: a. The Speed of Light Constant (~186,200 m/s or ~300,000 km/s) b. The Gravitational Attraction Constant (G = 6.67 x 10-11). c. The Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant (gs = 15) -62 http:// d. The Weak Force Constant (gw = 1.43 x 10 ) magisqr.com/082 e. The Electromagnetic Force has three constants associated with it: -27 i. The Mass of a Proton (mp = 1.67 x 10 kg) -31 ii. The Mass of an Electron (me = 9.11 x 10 kg) iii. The Electromagnetic Charge (e = 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs) f. Hubble’s Constant of the expansion rate of the universe (67.80 km/s + 0.77 km/s)
42 FNTC – The Fine Tuning of Initial Conditions and Universal Constants
So how much margin for error do we have? Here’s one example: If the gravitational constant or the weak force constant had varied from their values, by only one part in 1050 (.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) either higher or lower-- the universe would have either continuously exploded in its expansion (quickly incinerating everything, which is quite bad for all life forms), or contracted into a black hole (where the entire mass-energy of the universe would collapse into a space of only 10-33 centimeters (which is really, really, really small—and has almost infinite crushing capacity—equally bad for life forms). Either scenario would have been disastrous for the development of any life form we can imagine today.
Here’s another example: If the strong nuclear force coupling constant had been two percent higher than its value at the big Bang, there would be no hydrogen in our universe (no nuclear fuel for stars, no water, etc.—quite bad for life forms). Conversely if the strong nuclear force coupling constant had been two percent lower than its value at the Big Bang, there would be no element heavier than hydrogen in our universe (equally disastrous for life forms, no carbon).
And -- one more example -- we hope we are not belaboring this idea -- If the gravitational force, the mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, and/or the electromagnetic charge had varied ever so slightly from their values (higher or lower) at the Big Bang, then the entire universe would have been populated by blue giant stars or red dwarf stars. Blue giants incinerate everything and red dwarfs do not give off enough heat to get beyond freezing. Potential life forms would have either burned up or frozen—not friendly at all to the development of life forms!
Yikes! You mean life forms averted complete disaster in our universe by the smallest of margins in the values of the above six constants—higher or lower— at the Big Bang??? Yes—that’s precisely what we are saying—and not just the above six constants, but a lot of the other ones as well! Do you know the odds of hitting the anthropic values of all our universe’s constants (the values needed for life forms) so precisely at the Big Bang—when the possibilities either higher or lower were virtually endless? If you thought that the monkey typing the complete works of Shakespeare was improbable— now you have the monkey typing the entire corpus of English Literature by the random tapping of keys in a single try. Let’s go back to our other analogy—now, we would be winning the lottery (which is 44 million to one against) 1,936 (44X44) million times in a row! Needless to say, this is way beyond unlikely!
The famous physicist and cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University, was an atheist who, when confronted with the truth of the necessity of these “anthropic coincidences,” working in concert with one another to produce carbon at the Big Bang, stated, “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 through the blind forces of nature would be utterly miniscule?” Of course you would…. A common sense 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
43 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + 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.” 11 Later on, he compared the odds of the universe being filled with carbon (necessary for life) to a tornado blowing through a junkyard and leaving in its wake a fully assembled 747 jumbo jet all ready for flight. Now that would be a coincidence.
Needless to say, Hoyle changed his mind about being an atheist, and began to believe in QR 21 QR11 – Bio of Fine Tuning, Sir Fred Hoyle. an intelligent Creator. Entropy http://magisqr.com/011 http://magisqr.com/021
In Conclusion, the odds of having a universe, which can accommodate life forms are exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly small. We need not return to the monkey or the lottery to understand that an anthropic universe (made for life) could not have occurred by pure chance—it is not only scientifically unrealistic—it is unrealistic in every imaginable sense. In our next episode we will review this evidence and then discuss the only two options that can realistically explain the above anthropic coincidences— either an intelligent Creator or a multiverse. We will then have to decide which one is more realistic.
Chapter Review: We have discussed universal constants, anthropic coincidences, typing monkeys, fine tuning and coincidental airplanes. The odds of any individual anthropic coincidence occurring by pure chance is minute. The odds of them all falling into place is almost beyond calculation. The Penrose number alone can’t be printed out because there would be no place to put all of the paper on which the zeros would have to be printed--our solar system is too small to hold it.
As Father Spitzer said, “we really threaded the needle at the Big Bang”. In his summary at the end of the episode, father stated, “If the values of the constants did not occur by pure chance (because that is virtually impossible) and those values are necessary for life forms, then there must be another cause - - either a multiverse or a supernatural designer.” It is of interest that the evidence we have discussed in this chapter was enough to convert Sir Fred Hoyle and he was an ardent atheist.
One last thing to consider--we have now looked at 3 different sets of evidence from science all pointing to a Creator. As we said in the first episode, science can’t “prove” the existence of God (God is beyond our ability to observe directly) but science can certainly gather and provide evidence for God from the above data. In the next episode
11 Fred Hoyle 1981. “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science. (Pasadena, CA: California Institute of Technology Press, November), pp. 8-‐12.
44 FNTC – The Fine Tuning of Initial Conditions and Universal Constants
we will provide even more evidence.
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Two, Chapter 3:
1. Why is the “Penrose Number” considered an anthropic coincidence?
2. Please describe “universal constants”?
3. How would you describe “fine-tuning”?
4. Provide an example of how the improbability of one or more universal constants is so highly unlikely as to be beyond pure chance.
5. Who was Sir Fred Hoyle and what did he find amazing? How did this evidence affect his life?
6. If it is virtually impossible for all of these anthropic conditions to have happened by chance, what are the options left for us?
7. Do you think it is important to explore the improbability of universal constants in our schools today?
Notes:
45 From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
This page is all for you ~ Enjoy
46 FNTC – The Multiverse vs Supernatural Design
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Three Chapter 1
The Multiverse vs Supernatural Design (00:00 ~ 13:41)
In this Chapter, we finished the last episode with the statement: “If the values of the constants (at the Big Bang) did not occur by pure chance (because that is virtually impossible), and those values are necessary for life forms, then there must be another cause--either a multiverse or a supernatural designer.” What are the available options and which seems more reasonable and responsible? Let’s go find out…
47
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Introduction (3, 00:00 ~ 13:41)
Recall the idea of a multiverse from Episode One—a mega-universe which coughs out little bubble universes—one of which is ours. Recall, too, that this is a purely speculative idea, and even if it were real, it would have to have a beginning (according to the B-V-G theorem). We are now going to look at the multiverse from a slightly different angle. We already saw that it does not avert the need for a beginning (with its implications of a creation), but could it help to avoid the implications we saw at the end of the last episode—could it explain the incredibly high improbability of the anthropic coincidences necessary for any life form in a universe?
Before you watch the video, here are some questions you may want to ask yourself:
1)1) Do you thinkthink that that a a multiverse multiverse can can explain explain the the high high improbability improbability of anthropic of anthropic coincidences necessary necessary for for life? life?
2)2) Can you thinkthink of of some some problems problems with with the the multiverse multiverse hypothe hypothesissis explaining explaining these these improbabilities?
3) WhatWhat are some of the argumentsarguments youyou cancan thinkthink of of for for Supernatural Supernatural Design? Design?
Presentation:
Section 1. More Evidence of Fine-tuning (00:53 ~ 04:48)
We will first give a review of all of the evidence provided thus far in our journey into the past and through the universe. The DVD took us through the possibilities for physical reality--our universe, a bouncing universe, a multiverse, and any other known universal configuration-- and showed that physical reality, very likely, had a beginning—from the B-V-G proof and entropy. Fr. then showed why a beginning implies a Creator— because nothing can only do nothing, so when the universe (and physical reality) was nothing prior to the beginning, it could not have moved itself from nothing to something. This leaves the inevitable conclusion that something else would have to have done it—a Transcendent Creator.
Section Two: The Multiverse (04:48 – 13:41)
Let’s take a moment to briefly define a multiverse and see whether it can explain the high improbability of our anthropic universe.
A multiverse is a hypothetical configuration proposed by Andre Linde and others as a possible implication of the collapse of a false vacuum in inflationary theory. The hypothesis suggests that little “mini-universes” (bubble universes) could be generated by the collapse of the false vacuum in this “super-universe” (the multiverse). All the bubble universes would be unified through the space-time of the multiverse. We already saw that every multiverse must have a beginning, because it must be inflationary (and
48 FNTC – The Multiverse vs Supernatural Design have a Hubble expansion greater than zero). This means that every multiverse is subject to the condition of the B-V-G proof (and must have a beginning). Therefore, there can only be a finite number of bubble universes in any hypothetical multiverse because the multiverse itself is finite. 23 So, with that in mind, let’s look at this multiverse theory very closely. This does afford a seemingly viable possibility for explaining the existence of our highly improbable anthropic universe. Why? Because, each bubble universe “coughed out” can theoretically have a new set of initial conditions and values of its constants—allowing for trillions upon trillions of “do-overs” or “new tries.” It’s like getting a new roll of trillions of dice until all the correct values of the constants and initial conditions comes up. Every new roll is a whole new set of initial conditions and constant values. How many times would you have to throw these trillions of dice to get the one roll where all of the correct values for an anthropic universe come up on top? Far, far more than the Penrose number. Whoa—that’s a lot of bubble universes! Even though this is theoretically possible (after a multiverse’s beginning) there are still two other problems with a multiverse.
1) A multiverse violates Ockham’s Razor. This is an assumption of natural science which holds that nature favors elegance. Another way of saying this is the least complex, complicated and convoluted explanation is probably the correct one (see link following this paragraph). The multiverse theory entails trillions upon trillions of bubble universes. As Paul Davies notes, “This is like bringing excess baggage to cosmic extremes,” which is a superb example of a violation of Ockham’s Razor. This does not disprove the possibility of a multiverse because Ockham’s Razor is not an observational QR 12 datum or scientific law. It’s just an QR 29 Ockham’s Ockhams assumption which seems to work almost http://magisqr.com/012 Razor, Hawking Razor every time. Maybe the multiverse is the http://magisqr.com/029style onedefinition “super-huge” exception to Ockham’s Razor—but then again, perhaps nature is totally consistent and multiverses simply do not exist.
2) Here’s a bigger problem—every conceived multiverse theory requires fine-tuning in its initial conditions and constants! For example, in Andre Linde’s chaotic inflationary multiverse, the bubble universes cannot be produced in a random and disordered way. If they were produced in this way, the bubble universes would bump into each other and their gravitational influence would wreak havoc upon other bubble universes. This would be very bad for lifeforms because excessive gravitational influence and collisions of bubble universes would shake the whole space-time continuum of the bubble universe like shaking a bowl of Jello. Trust me, this would make natural laws and the development of complex systems very difficult indeed—if
It is important to remember that there is no observational evidence for a multiverse. It is purely speculative. 23 Furthermore, it is doubtful that we will ever be able to get observational evidence of any multiverse, at least not until we can get beyond our universe to obtain evidence of its possible existence.
49
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + not impossible. So how can Linde and his colleagues avoid such travesties in their hypothetical model? They have to introduce a slow and orderly rollout of bubble universes to avoid collisions and this requires fine-tuning in its initial conditions and constants.24 In the end, all we have done is move the fine- tuning problem back one step—from the beginning of our universe to that of the multiverse. So the multiverse really doesn’t solve the fine-tuning problem. This is precisely what makes the supernatural intelligence option seem more explanatory—and therefore, more reasonable.
Chapter Review:
As we approach the end of our discussions on various pools of evidence from science indicating a Creator, we looked once more for a natural cause that might explain the Big Bang and the anthropic conditions present at the Big Bang. Several scientists have pointed to the multiverse as a possible explanation. However, the multiverse has three weaknesses--one of which is almost fatal.
1. Multiverses (which are purely hypothetical) have to have a beginning, which means there can only be a finite number of bubble universes in them. 2. Multiverses violate Ockham’s Razor—in a really big way! Though this is not a fatal flaw, it casts suspicion on the theory because it runs counter to nature’s omnipresent elegance. 3. As currently conceived multiverses require fine-tuning. This means that the multiverse does not solve the problem of fine-tuning—it only moves it back one step. This is the most problematic of the three problems with multiverses.
So where does this leave us? It seems as if we need an intelligent Creator to explain fine-tuning of either our universe—or, if there is one—a multiverse. An intelligent Creator seems to be our most intelligent and responsible position.
13 Students interested in the fine-tuning of multiverses may want to consult the following sources: Bruce Gordon. 2010. “Inflationary Cosmology and the String Multiverse” in New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert Spitzer, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans) pp.74-104. See also: Laila Alibidi and David Lyth. 2006. “Inflation Models of Observation,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. JCAP 0605:016.doi: 10.1088-1475-7516/2006/05016. 50 FNTC – The Multiverse vs Supernatural Design
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Three, Chapter 1:
1. How would you describe a multiverse?
2. What are the odds against a bubble universe popping into existence with low entropy?
3. What are some of the three problems with using the multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of our universe?
4. How many natural causes have we found for low entropy at the Big Bang?
5. Why do you think scientists promote multiverse theories?
6. What are your views on the challenges to the multiverse theories?
7. What can “nothing” do? (You should get this one right.)
8. What conclusion did we reach about the viability of the multiverse as an explanation for our universe’s anthropic coincidences?
9. With what you know about the multiverse and Ockham’s Razor, what do you think about the validity of the following statement from Steven Hawking?
In QR 29 (above – this chapter), Stephen Hawking says the following: “It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's Razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed." He implies in this context that the only non-observable entity is an intelligent Creator.25
Do you think that Ockham’s Razor only applies to God? Does it not also apply to multiverses? Remember, the multiverse is just as non-observable as a transcendent intelligent Creator. If we took Hawking seriously and tossed out all of the theories we cannot observe, this would be a much smaller workbook. Is it possible that Ockham’s Razor applies more properly to a multiverse than to God? Remember, Ockham’s Razor is not concerned primarily with non-observability but with the assumption that nature favors elegance—what is least complex, complicated and convoluted. More on that later.
25 See Stephen Hawking. 1988. A Brief History of Time. (London: Bantam Books) p. 59 51
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Three Chapter 2
A Response to Two Objections to Supernatural Design (13:41 ~ 21:00)
In this chapter, we will address what “new atheists,” like Richard Dawkins, use for arguments against a Creator and how we should address those arguments. We will examine the two most common objections. These arguments appear to make sense, at least, at first glance. Let’s look under the surface.
52 FNTC – A Response to Two Objections to Supernatural Design
Introduction (13:41 ~ 21:00) It is no surprise that “new atheists” reject supernatural design (fine-tuning, etc.). They insist that the fine-tuning of our anthropic universe has a natural explanation—because “It just is!” Is this really a valid explanation of anthropic coincidences like the low entropy of our universe and the anthropic values of our universal constants at the Big Bang? Is this really their best punch?
Before you watch, please answer the following questions:
What do you think of the explanation “It just is!”? Take it out of the context of physics and cosmology for a moment and apply it to any other question “Why?” What would you think if you asked a scientist the question “Why is the sun hot?” and he responded, “It just is!”? And how about the questions “Why are the tides so high today?”, or “Why is this tree dying?” with the response being: “It just is!” Why would we think that this response is unsatisfactory? Don’t you think and assume that there is a better answer?
Presentation:
Section 1. What Atheists Are Saying and a Proper Response (13:41 ~ 21:00)
Many new atheists argue that all natural occurrences must have a natural explanation. As you might remember from Episode One, this is not true because inasmuch as our universe (or even a multiverse) has a beginning, all natural occurrences cannot have a natural explanation—remember, prior to a beginning, all natural explanations do not exist—they are literally, nothing. Recall also, from Episode Two that the Big Bang is a barrier to natural causation; so even if there were something prior to the Big Bang, it would be causally disconnected from it. The idea of asking for a natural cause of occurrences at the QR81 – Big Bang is like asking “What is the natural cause of an event prior to The which there can be no natural cause”-- an obvious contradiction. Importanchttp:// magisqr.com/081 e of Believe it or not, many skeptics are either unaware of or simply ignore the“Nothing” contradictory nature of their position.
The second objection of skeptics was given above—“don’t concern yourself with the cause of universal fine-tuning, just accept it—“It just is!” Is this really adequate in light of the physical evidence? Let’s take low entropy, for example. Recall, that the famous physicist Roger Penrose asserted that the odds against low entropy occurring at the Big 123 Bang are 1010 to one. Why do you think he asserted this if the low entropy of our universe at the Big Bang “just was”? Obviously, he did not think that it “just was.” Why? 123 He knew that there were 1010 equally possible phase-space options for our universe at the Big Bang. Without getting needlessly complicated, just think of 26a phase-space
“Phase-Space Option” refers to a possible condition of the universe that can arise out of the entropy of 80 the 26 universe’s total mass. There are approximately 10 baryons (protons and neutrons) of visible matter in our universe. Since the entropy of each baryon is 1043, the total entropy of our universe is 10123. In order to calculate the total number of possible phase-space options for our universe, all we have to do is 123 find the exponential of the total entropy--1010 -- possible phase-space options.
53
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + option as a “condition of our universe which could arise out of a visible mass of approximately 1080 protons and neutrons (the approximate amount of visible matter in our universe). Now here’s the problem, each one of these phase-space options is equally possible for the visible mass of our universe, but only a few will give rise to low entropy (the order necessary for the development and sustenance of life). All the rest of the phase-space options are high entropy (which would have been disastrous for life forms). There are so few low entropy phase-space options that the odds against getting 123 123 one of these options is 1010 to one. All 1010 high entropy phase-space options were equally possible at the Big Bang. This is why Penrose believed there had to be some cause or explanation for how this one low entropy option occurred amidst all the other equally possible high entropy ones. This is a legitimate question and deserves to be answered with something more than “It just is.”
Here is an analogy which may prove helpful. Imagine that there is a huge black cloth spanning the entire extent of our galaxy, The Milky Way, and that there is one tiny red speck—about the size of a pinpoint on that otherwise, completely black cloth. The 123 black cloth represents the 1010 black pinpoints that could be a possible high entropy phase-space option, while our red pinpoint is the only low entropy phase-space option. Now imagine that at the Big Bang a dart with a point the size of a pinpoint is launched toward the gigantic black cloth, and out of all possible black cloth, it hits the one red point straight on. Since the odds of this happening by pure chance are so incredibly low, you might seek some explanation besides pure chance—“It just happened—it just is.” There is certainly a way better chance it just isn’t it just is.
Is it sufficient to say about the fine-tuning of the universe,
“It just is” (needs no explanation)?
No, because every non-life alternative was equally possible at the Big Bang.
Imagine a sheet the size of our Milky Way made black by 123 1010 black pen points.
Now imagine one red dot on that immense sheet.
The possibility of a high entropy universe are all of the black dots, while the possibility of a low entropy universe is the single, tiny, red dot.
Now imagine launching a needle toward the black sheet from a distant galaxy. The odds of a low entropy universe by pure chance are about the 123 same as the needle striking the red dot – dead center – amidst the 1010 equally possible black dots.
The low entropy at our Big Bang was not a simple occurrence—it was a selection of 123 one option amidst 1010 other equally possible options. We are not merely asking “Why is the universe the way it is?” but “Why is the universe the way it is when it should have been otherwise –by any reasonable standard or statistic?” This deserves an explanation—as much as a monkey typing Shakespeare perfectly by random tapping of 54 FNTC – A Response to Two Objections to Supernatural Design the keys in a single try. The monkey should not have been able to do this, and so the remote possibility requires a cause or explanation. This requirement for an explanation or cause also applies to all the anthropic values of our universal constants at the Big Bang. Why? Because, the non-anthropic values of those constants (which are equally possible) are far, far more numerous than the very narrow window of anthropic values. In other words, we are not simply asking “Why is it?” we are asking Why should this be when it should not have happened?” And that requires a cause or explanation.
What do you think is more reasonable and responsible? If you were confronted by a set of circumstances that is incredibly unlikely—indeed, almost impossible to explain by pure chance—do you think that such a circumstance requires an explanation or would you just say “It just is”? If you arrived at a new planet and encountered a Cray supercomputer, amidst a wasteland, would you just simply think “Wow! What a coincidence—I guess it just popped into being,” or rather, wouldn’t you think “There must be some cause for this extraordinary circumstance, because it should not have happened by pure chance.”
Chapter Review:
What have we learned here? We examined the argument that there might be a natural cause for the fine-tuning of our initial conditions (and anthropic values of our constants), but found this explanation to be highly unlikely, because these initial conditions and constant values had to be present at the Big Bang. Recall that the Big Bang is a barrier to natural causation, because everything before it (if there was anything) would have been causally disconnected from it.
We also examined the argument that our initial conditions and constants “just are,” and found this argument to be equally invalid because it assumes that everything in our universe at the Big Bang occurred in a vacuum—that is, that there were no other equally possible options for entropy and the values of our universal constants. The fact is that there were trillions, upon trillions, upon trillions of equally possible options for both entropy and the values of our constants—and more importantly—the vast, vast majority of those other equally possible options were non-anthropic (disastrous for any life form). This means that the question is not just “why does our entropy have such a low value and our constants have anthropic values at the Big Bang?” The complete question is, “Why does our entropy have such a low value and our constants have anthropic values at the Big Bang, when by every imaginable standard or measure they should not have had those values?” As we said, this requires a cause or explanation. Failure to ask this question in any other line of inquiry would be considered sheer incompetence. Why shouldn’t we think the same thing with respect to inquiry about an intelligent Creator? I used to have a sign hanging in my office: “ ‘In God we trust,’ all others must bring data.” Those who claim that the value of entropy and the anthropic values of our constants at the Big Bang have a natural cause—must provide data. If they don’t we are left with the need for some other cause or explanation because those values should not have happened.
55
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Three, Chapter 2:
1. How do some skeptics explain our low entropy and low anthropic values of constants without a Creator? 2. How might we respond in light of the Big Bang? 3. When considering explanations for the extraordinary occurrence of our low entropy and anthropic values of constants at the Big Bang, why is the answer “It just is” invalid from both a logical and factual point of view? 4. Do you think that the evidence for a Creator is both reasonable and responsible in light of the counter arguments argued by skeptics? 5. How is a natural cause for the universe essentially made a moot point by a beginning? 6. With all of the evidence presented by science in recent decades, why do you think atheists and skeptics continue to be unaware or ignore the facts?
Notes
56 FNTC – A Response to Dawkins and a Metaphysical Proof of a Creator
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Three Chapter 3
A Response to Dawkins and a Metaphysical Proof of A Creator (21:00 ~ 41:35)
In this chapter, we will directly respond to Richard Dawkins and his argument against a Supernatural Designer. As a recognized leader of atheists, a response to his objection from Magis Center is appropriate from both science and faith perspectives. We will stick to the science and let faith fend for itself. We do bring data.
57
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Episode Three, Chapter 3: – A Response to Dawkins and a Metaphysical Proof of a Creator 27 Introduction (21:00 ~ 41:35)
If you have made the decision to venture into the depths of metaphysics, we must first start with explaining this term. In Greek, “meta” means “beyond” (among other things). That works pretty well for what we’re doing here. Webster’s defines metaphysical as, “transcending physical matter or laws of nature.” A metaphysical explanation, then, is one beyond the physical. Often times, such explanations are based upon philosophical (logical) proofs. In this chapter, we will respond to a well-known argument from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. In the video, Fr. Spitzer gives a very basic outline of a proof for God’s existence that began with Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas and has been enhanced by many philosophers today. Students interested in these proofs may want to check out Mortimer Adler’s How to Think About God—A Guide for the Twentieth Century Pagan. If you are really ambitious, you may want to look at Chapter 3 of Fr. Spitzer’s book New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. The brevity of the video presentation forced Fr. Spitzer to give only a brief summary28 of the proof in the video. Students who want a formal presentation of the full 8 step proof should go to: < SG69/64 – steps 1 thru 8 – QR80>
QR 80 -‐ 8
Step Proof Before you watch the video think about these questions: Creator http://magisqr.com/080 =
Simplicity What do you think about God? Do you think he is complex (composed of many parts) or simple (not composed of any parts) like a pure spiritual power? Do you think that God has to be in space and time or could He be a power that transcends space and time?
Presentation:
Section 1. Dawkins’ Objection to a Supernatural Designer (Creator)
So what is Dawkins’ argument? We can set it out in three steps: 1. A designer must be more complex than anything it designs.
The following section contains complex metaphysical concepts which may be challenging. You may skip 27 this chapter if these philosophical proofs are not of interest. However, it may be beneficial to give it a try. In this book Fr. Spitzer gives references to many other philosophers and physicists who have 28developed excellent contemporary proofs of God—Bernard Lonergan, Karl Rahner, Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Joseph Pieper, William Lane Craig, and Emerich Coreth, and many more.
58 FNTC – A Response to Dawkins and a Metaphysical Proof of a Creator
2. Whatever is more complex is more improbable. 3. Therefore, a designer must always be more improbable that what it designs.
At first glance this seems to be both logical and factual. But is it—really? There can be no disputing Dawkins’ second premise—the more complex something is, the more improbable it must be. Why? Because “more complexity” means “a unity of more parts,” and a “unity of more parts” is more improbable than a unity of less parts or no parts. It’s like a jigsaw puzzle—the more pieces you have, the more improbable will be its successful assembly. But here is where our agreement stops.
As we shall show, the first premise about a designer being more complex than what it designs is patently false—and as a matter of fact, that falsity has been recognized by generations of philosophers since the time of Aristotle (2,400 years ago). We will summarize a well-known metaphysical proof of God in five easy steps— but again, if you want the complete 8 step proof, see QR80 (previous page)
Step One: There must be at least one uncaused reality in the whole of reality. What’s an uncaused reality? It’s a reality that does not have to be caused in order to exist—it exists through itself alone. So an uncaused reality is the opposite of a “caused reality”—that is, a reality which must be caused in order to exist—because it does not exist through itself.
So why must there be at least one of these uncaused realities? Think about this—a hypothetical caused reality must await causation in order to exist. Prior to causation, it does not exist—it is simply nothing (and you know all about that already). Conversely, an uncaused reality does not have to await causation to exist— because it exists on its own—through itself.
Now imagine there is no uncaused reality in the whole of reality. This would mean that “the whole of reality” is composed of caused realities—which must await causation in order to exist. Do you see the contradiction—realities which are awaiting existence? How can they be realities if they are awaiting causation to exist? Answer—they are not realities in the strict sense—but only hypothetical realities which are nothing. What does this mean? If the whole of reality is awaiting causation to exist, then the whole of reality is merely hypothetical—because it does not yet exist. The conclusion is obvious. If the whole of reality is merely hypothetical (not real) it is nothing. But this can’t be the case because I am writing this book and you are, apparently, reading it—therefore, the whole of reality is not nothing.
So we can sum up the above proof by saying: If at least one uncaused reality did not exist, then the whole of reality would not exist. Since this is clearly not the case, then at least one uncaused reality must exist.
It really does not matter whether you postulate an infinite number of caused realities— and you arrange them in circles, or huge non-linear progressions—those realities (awaiting causation to exist) are still in their totality merely hypothetical—still nothing.
59
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + Evidently, an infinite amount of nothing is still nothing. We can now progress to our next step.
Step Two: An uncaused reality must be “pure existence through itself”—there can be nothing different from it, within it.
Remember what was said above—an uncaused reality must exist through itself—it is literally “existence through itself.” So what is different from “existence through itself”? You’ve got it—“something not existing through itself.” Now, think about this, if something does not exist through itself, what must it be? I think you probably know already—“a caused reality”—a reality which must be caused in order to exist.
Now, we can get to the point St. Thomas Aquinas discovered long ago—an uncaused reality must be pure—it cannot have any differences from itself within itself. If it did have such differences within itself, those differences would have to be caused (because as said above they do not exist through themselves). Now, as you might already recognize, this is a contradiction. Think about it, the uncaused reality would have differences that need to be caused within it. Do you see the contradiction? There would be some aspect of the uncaused reality that would have to be caused! Since this is a contradiction, we must conclude that the uncaused reality must be pure--it cannot have any differences from itself within itself.
How might we think about “pure existence through itself”? For the moment, we can say that it is like a pure power—or power itself—or, the power of all powers—because without it there can be no other power—it is the power which makes all other powers exist.
Step Three: Pure existence through itself cannot have any restriction.
Before presenting the proof, we need to give a definition of “restriction”. A “restriction” refers to any attribute, quality, characteristic or factor that restricts or limits the activity, power, duration, extension, or dimensionality of existence. There are three major ways in which existence is restricted (though there may be others, if there are other dimensions, universes, etc.). The three major restrictions to existence are:
Spatiality—which limits the extension of existence; Temporality (time) --which limits the duration of existence; “Particular way of acting” --which limits the activity of existence to a particular way— such as the way of acting like an electron (having a negative charge—but not a positive one), or the way of acting like a proton (having a positive charge but not a negative one), etc.
Here is the basic proof:
1. Every “restriction to existence” must be different from “pure existence through itself”. 2. But there can be no differences within “pure existence through itself” as proved above in Step Two.
60 FNTC – A Response to Dawkins and a Metaphysical Proof of a Creator
3. Therefore, there can be no “restriction to existence” in “pure existence through itself”.
We don’t have to prove the second premise, because we did it already in Step Two above. But we do have to prove the first premise. So how can we be certain that every “restriction to existence” is different from “pure existence through itself”? We can prove this in two substeps – Substep “A” and Substep “B.” Let’s begin with Substep “A.”
Substep A:
Think about this – if any “restriction to existence” were not different from “pure existence through itself” then pure existence through itself would have to have that restriction (because that restriction would be intrinsic to it, and therefore indistinguishable from it).
Let’s give an example. If an “electron way of acting” (i.e., having a negative charge) were not different from “pure existence through itself,” then “pure existence through itself” would always have to have “an electron way of acting” because “pure existence through itself” would be indistinguishable from it.
You can put in any “restriction to existence” you wish into the underlined spaces above —such as, “proton way of acting,” “positron way of acting,” spatiality, temporality— anything that restricts the activity, power, duration, extent or dimensionality of existence—and the result will be the same. If that “restriction to existence” is not different from “pure existence though itself” then “pure existence through itself” will have to have that restriction.
Substep B:
You are probably wondering – why “pure existence through itself” does not have to have any restriction. Here is the basic argument:
“Pure existence through itself” does not need any restriction in order to exist because it exists through itself--it is an uncaused reality.29 It is completely self-sufficient. Now if, “pure existence through itself” does not need any “restriction to existence” in order to exist, then it does not have to have any “restriction to existence.” Let’s use the same example given above in Substep A—an electron way of acting. “Pure existence through itself” does not need an electron way of acting in order to exist, because it exists through itself—it is completely self-sufficient.
29 After proving that every restriction is different from “pure existence through itself”, St. Thomas Aquinas showed that the converse statement must also be true—“Every restriction needs ‘existence through itself’ in order to exist -- because without an uncaused reality, that restriction would be nothing.” By doing this, he showed that “existence must precede essence.” In other words, existence (pure existence through itself) just ontologically prior to essence (any set of restrictions to existence—such as an electron way of acting), because the former does not need the latter to exist, but the latter needs the former in order to exist. 61
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + Now if “pure existence through itself” does not need an electron way of acting in order to exist then it does not have to have an electron way of acting. Now, substitute any restriction you wish for “electron way of acting” in the sentence above and you will see “pure existence through itself” does not need any “restriction to existence” in order to exist, and if it does not need any restriction in order to exist, then it does not have to have any restriction whatsoever.
Now we can combine the conclusions of Substep A and Substep B.
1. In Substep A we showed that if a particular restriction (e.g. an electron way of acting) was not different from “pure existence through itself” then “pure existence through itself” would have to have that restriction. 2. But, we showed in Substep B, that “pure existence through itself” does not have to have any “restriction to existence” because it does not need any “restriction to existence” in order to exist (since it exists through itself—it is uncaused). 3. Therefore, every “restriction to existence” must be different from “pure existence through itself”.
You are probably growing very weary with this proof, but here is our final conclusion. Let’s return to the basic argument that we presented at the very top of Step Three:
1. Every “restriction to existence” must be different from “pure existence through itself” (as proven in the two substeps above). 2. But there can be no differences within “pure existence through itself” as proved above in Step Two. 3. Therefore, there can be no “restriction to existence” in “pure existence through itself”.
Therefore, “pure existence through itself” cannot have any “restriction to existence”. Another way of saying this is-- “pure existence through itself” must be unrestricted – it cannot have any restriction whatsoever.
I know this proof is difficult for someone who has not had a course in logic or metaphysics, but we thank you for your effort in trying to grasp it, because you really don’t need a course in logic or metaphysics to understand either the premises or the conclusion. If you made it through to the end with some understanding, please know that you have grasped one of the deepest and most central metaphysical insights of St. Thomas Aquinas and the whole Thomistic school of philosophy – and that is quite an accomplishment.
62 FNTC – A Response to Dawkins and a Metaphysical Proof of a Creator
Step Four: Pure Existence Through Itself Must Be Unique (One and Only One)30
The Basic Proof may be set out in three premises:
(A) If there is to be multiplicity among realities, there must be a difference between those realities. (B) If there is to be a difference between realities then at least one of those realities must be restricted. (C) But there can be no restriction in “pure existence through itself” (from Step (3) above).
Therefore, there cannot be more than one pure existence through itself.
Explanation of the Proof:
The first premise is true because if there is no difference of any kind between two realities, they must be the self-same reality. Let us postulate two realities – X1 and X2. Now, let us suppose there is no difference between them – no difference as to space- time point, no difference in power or activity, no difference of qualities or characteristics, no difference of any kind whatsoever. What are they? Obviously, the same reality, and as such “they” are only one.
Let’s now look at the truth of the second premise. Think about this -- if there is going to be a difference between X1 and X2 (so there can be a multiplicity of them), then one of them will have to be something or have something or be somewhere or be in some other dimension that the other one is not. Let’s suppose that X1 has something that X2 does not have. This means that X2 is restricted or limited because it lacks this quality or characteristic. Similarly, if one postulates that X1 is something that X2 is not, then X2 would again have to be restricted (as manifest by its lack of that “something”). The same would hold true if X1 were somewhere that X2 was not, and if X1 were in another dimension that X2 was not. In short, every differentiating factor will entail a restriction of at least one of the realities.
The third premise has already been proved in Step (3) above--“There can be no restriction in pure existence through itself. ” Therefore, there cannot be a difference between two hypothetical instances of “pure existence through itself.” This means that there cannot be a multiplicity of “pure existence through itself.” Hence, “pure existence through itself” must be unique—one and only one.
If you’ve been able to grasp the general lines of the above proof, you will see that after Step Four, we have a proof for the existence of God—because this is the appropriate term to designate a completely unique, unrestricted, pure self-sufficient power of “existence through itself.” Let’s review--in Step One we showed that there must be
30 Fr. Spitzer did not present this step in the video because of the restrictions of time. However, it is important to see that “pure existence through itself” must be unique, and hence there can be only one God. The proof is fairly straightforward. If you work through it, you will see that monotheism is necessary. 63
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + at least one uncaused reality in the whole of reality, and in Steps Two and Three we showed that this uncaused reality must be unrestricted, and finally, in Step Four we showed that an unrestricted reality must be unique. If you are interested in seeing why this unique, unrestricted reality must be the cause of everything else, go to Chapter Six of the Study Guide and read Step Five.
QR14 Clip from Ep 3, http://magisqr.com/014 22:40 ~ 33:20 Step Five The Unique Unrestricted “Pure Existence Through Itself” Must Be Absolutely Simple (the absence of complexity)
By now, you are probably weary, but if you hang on, we are almost to the main point of the argument—Dawkins’ error with respect to the complexity of God.
Basic Argument: 1. Complexity entails parts; 2. Parts entail restriction; 3. But, there can be no restriction in “pure existence through itself”. 4. Therefore, there can be no parts and no complexity in “pure existence through itself”. Explanation:
The first and second premises are true because anything which is complex must have parts constituting a greater whole. For example, atoms are constituted by protons and electrons; molecules are composed of atoms; cells are composed of molecules; complex organisms are composed of multiple cells and cellular structure, etc. Notice that each of these parts is restricted as to its place, duration, and way of existing. Now if there are parts constituting a greater whole, the parts must be more restricted than the whole, and therefore the parts must have restrictions as to their time, space, or way of existing. For example, protons must be more restricted in space and way of acting than atoms, and atoms must be more restricted in space and way of acting than molecules, and molecules must be more restricted in space and way of acting than cells, etc.
The proof of the third premise “There can be no restriction in “pure existence through itself” was given above in Step Three. Now--if there can be no restrictions in “pure existence through itself,” then there can be no parts in “pure existence through itself”, and if no parts, then no complexity. The uncaused reality must be absolutely simple.
This stands in direct contrast to Dawkins’ assertion that a Designer must be more complex than what it designs. As shown above, the Designer (God) – the unique unrestricted “pure existence through itself”– cannot have restrictions-- and therefore
64 FNTC – A Response to Dawkins and a Metaphysical Proof of a Creator cannot have parts—and therefore cannot be complex--it must be absolutely simple. We can now see Dawkins’ fundamental confusion--instead of grasping the necessity for the one unrestricted uncaused reality to be absolutely simple, he presumed it would need parts—and lots of them. As can be seen from the above proof, nothing could further from the truth.
Let us now return to Dawkins’ argument with which we started:
1. A designer must always be more complex than what it designs. 2. Whatever is more complex is more improbable. 3. Therefore, a designer must be more improbable than what it designs.
By now it will be clear that Dawkins’ second premise is correct, but the first premise is categorically wrong. In fact, God (the Designer) must be more simple than anything He designs. Ironically, this means, by Dawkins’ second premise (“Whatever is more complex is more improbable.”) that an absolutely simple Creator or Designer would have to be the most probable reality of all. Thus, Dawkins’ argument serves only to affirm—not to deny-- the existence of God if the one necessary unrestricted uncaused reality must be absolutely simple (as proven above).31 Ooops.
Chapter Review:
There is an important expression in the rules of logic and evidence — “arbitrarily asserted — then, arbitrarily denied.” In other words, if someone gives no evidence for an assertion, then an opponent need not give any evidence to deny it. The problem with Richard Dawkins’ argument against God, is that its first premise is arbitrarily asserted. In his work The God Delusion he gives no evidence for why a Designer would have to be more complex than what it designs. As a good biologist, he probably assumed it. Unfortunately, this assumption is categorically wrong when applied to an uncaused reality (God).
There is a second maxim in the rules of logic and evidence: “There are far more errors of omission than commission.” Dawkins’ argument is filled with those omissions. First, he doesn’t give a definition of either “God,” or “Designer” beyond a common sense meaning. If he had bothered to do this, and had given only a minimal definition of God (such as the “metaphysical God” of Aristotle — an “uncaused reality”) he would have discovered that an uncaused reality is absolutely necessary. If he had looked into the attributes of an uncaused reality, he would have seen that such a reality cannot have any differences or restrictions within itself, and if he discovered that, he might have made the further discovery that this reality must be absolutely one and absolutely simple—allowing him to avoid the major blunder of asserting the complexity of God.
31 Dawkins’ peculiar view of the “complexity of God” seems to be absent from the entire history of philosophy—from Aristotle to the present. It is a major philosophical blunder by any standard. 65
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Three, Chapter 3:
1. What does “Metaphysical” mean?
2. How did Dawkins try to show a Designer would be more improbable than what it designed? (Give all three parts of his argument.)
3. What support does he cite for his theory of a Designer being more complex than what it designs?
4. Can you name any philosophers who believe quite the opposite?
5. How would you describe an uncaused reality?
Here are some tougher questions for those who are interested in delving deeper into proofs of God – this is beyond extra credit:
6. Try to describe in your own words why there must be at least one uncaused reality. (Look at the proof in Step One above for help.)
7. Try to describe why “pure existence through itself” can have no differences within itself. Hint – is there a contradiction in this?
8. Okay, now this is really going to get harder – try to describe in your own words why “pure existence through itself” cannot have any restrictions. Hint – if you need to, go back to the formula at the end of Step Three of the proof, and fill in the blanks again.
9. If you are really a glutton for punishment, try this one – Why must an unrestricted reality be unique – one and only one?
10. Here is the last one – Why must an unrestricted reality be absolutely simple (devoid of complexity)?
Note: If you were able to give a basic outline of an answer to questions 6-10 above, you should seriously consider being--at the very least-- a college or parish evangelist – or perhaps a theology teacher or professor.
Notes:
66 FNTC – A Summary of the Evidence for an Intelligent Creator from Physics
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Three, Chapter 4
A Summary of the Evidence for an Intelligent Creator from Physics (41:35 ~ 48:00)
In this chapter, we will review the past three topics: space-time geometry proofs, entropy, and anthropic coincidences.
67
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + Presentation:
Introduction (41:35 ~ 48:00): The title pretty much sums up this brief review of the previous lessons from physics.
Before you watch the video, please answer these questions:
1) What conclusions (if any) have you drawn from the evidence presented from Space- Time Geometry proofs (like the B-V-G Proof), entropy, and fine-tuning of universal constants?
2) Do you see any advantage in presenting evidence from several different sets of data that point to the very same conclusion rather than relying solely on one set of data?
Section 1. What does all this mean? (41:40 ~ 48:00): Let’s take a look at the diagram below and review the three major sets of evidence from physics that lead to the likelihood of an intelligent Creator. As we are reviewing this evidence, try to think of how these three sets of data complement and corroborate (reinforce) each other.
Three Kinds of Evidence for Intelligent Creation
1. Space-Time Geometry Proofs 2. Entropy (Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof) (2nd Law of Thermodynamics)
3. Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-tuning of Initial Conditions & Universal Constants)
1. Space-Time Geometry Proofs: The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof (B-V-G Proof) shows the necessity for a beginning of any universe or multiverse with an average rate of expansion greater than zero. This applies to virtually every known universal model (except the infinitely static universe which was shown to be contradictory). Since this proof has only one condition and is so vastly applicable, it shows a high likelihood of a beginning not only of our universe, but of physical reality itself (even if physical reality includes a multiverse, string universe, etc.)
2. Entropy: Recall that entropy is a measure of disorder, and it increases with time and work – so that any physical system doing work for an infinite amount of time would have to be completely used up – incapable of doing work. In the case of our universe, if it had existed for an infinite amount of time, it would have used up all of its order (which
68 FNTC – A Summary of the Evidence for an Intelligent Creator from Physics enables it to do work), and it would be a dead universe. But this is not the case; our entropy is exceedingly low, indicating that our universe has only been around for a finite time – indeed, a comparatively short time when we compare 13.8 billion years to infinity. Incidentally, entropy, as Einstein suspected, probably applies to every physical system – including multiverses and string universes because it is based on mathematics – (the much higher probability of disorder over order).
3. From a Beginning to a Creator: Before we get to fine-tuning coincidences that show the intelligence of a Creator, see if you can recall the following two items: • Why does the combination of these two data sets lead to a stronger likelihood of a beginning? • Can you recall why a beginning of physical reality implies a transcendent Creator? Hint – it has something to do with nothing.
4. Fine-tuning and Anthropic Coincidences: Recall the information that pure chance alone simply cannot explain the fine-tuning of our initial conditions and universal constants at the Big Bang. This strongly implies that the Creator is intelligent – unless of course there is some as yet unknown natural cause. Since the fine-tuning of our initial conditions and constants occurs at the Big Bang, we will have to find a natural cause which occurs prior to it. But that can’t happen, because, everything before the Big Bang is causally disconnected to it.
Thus, the only possibility of a natural cause would have to be a multiverse which allows for trillions upon trillions of bubble universes – all of which have their own distinct set of conditions and constants (much like a new roll of the dice -- a “do over”). If the multiverse is the only natural cause that might be workable, and it too requires fine- tuning in its conditions and constants, then a supernatural designer begins to look more reasonable and responsible than a natural cause.
If you are interested in seeing more about “Fine Tuning”, here is an interesting YouTube video for you:
QR15 – video explanation of http://magisqr.com/015fine tuning
At this point, Dawkins’ objection becomes relevant– if a designer must be more complex than what it designs, then it must be more probable. But this objection proves to be invalid, because an uncaused reality (necessary for existence) must be absolutely simple – as we have shown in the metaphysical proof of God. By Dawkins’ own logic then, this supernatural Creator and Designer is the most probable cause of the anthropic conditions and constants of our universe. This blends perfectly with the evidence for a beginning from the B-V-G Proof and entropy.
69
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + John Henry Newman would call this convergence of three data sets an “informal inference”. He defined that as a convergence of multiple data sets (each of which is independently probable) on a single conclusion. In this case we have three scientific data sets (the B-V-G Proof, entropy, and fine-tuning), and one logical-metaphysical proof all converging on a single conclusion – namely, that a transcendent intelligent Creator exists – and created the whole of physical reality. Notice what Newman said about this convergence – all four of these independently probable data sets mutually corroborate (reinforce) and complement one another. This means that if one or more of the data sets undergoes modification, the conclusion can still stand. Like individual strands of nylon woven into a rope, the strength of the whole is far greater than the individual components. In sum, the conclusion about a transcendent intelligent Creator is quite strong and capable of being sustained – even if there is modification in one or more of its data sets.
Chapter Review: Three sets of data from physics all point towards a Creator. So also does the metaphysical proof of God, which allows us to make the informal inference of a transcendent, intelligent Creator. Recent history has shown that the above evidence is so strong that physicists have to conjure up incredibly unlikely and convoluted scenarios just to avoid it. The physical evidence on its own favors a Creator, and when one sees this evidence in the light of the unlikely, convoluted scenarios that are hypothesized to avoid it, it reminds us of Ockham’s Razor -- the more complex natural explanations become, and the more assumptions they require, the more they seem to diverge from the elegance and harmony of nature.
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Three Chapter 4: 1. What is the definition of an “informal inference”?
2. How would that apply to what we have just discussed in this chapter?
3. Do you think the four kinds of evidence are sufficient for reasonable and responsible belief in an intelligent Creator? If so, why, and if not, why not?
4. Ockham’s Razor holds that the more complex natural explanations become, and the more assumptions they require, the more they violate the elegance of nature. Do you agree or disagree, and why?
Notes:
70 FNTC – Evidence of a Soul From Near Death Experiences (NDEs)
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Three, Chapter 5
Evidence of a Soul From Near Death Experiences (48:05 ~ 1:04:22)
In this chapter, we will discuss one of the most fascinating new discoveries of the 20th and 21st centuries. Though some accounts of near death experiences (NDE’s) are anecdotal and warrant skepticism, Fr. Spitzer will work only with the major scientific medical studies conducted in the last twenty-five years. Do you know anyone who has had a NDE? If so, I’ll bet this will sound quite familiar to them.
71
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + Episode Three, Chapter 5: – Evidence of a Soul From Near Death Experiences (NDEs)
Introduction (48:05 ~ 1:04:22)
One of the most remarkable new kinds of evidence for a transcendent soul (capable of surviving bodily death) can be taken from the medical study of near death experiences. The first major study (by Dr. Raymond Moody) took place in 1975, and since that time there have been many other major peer-reviewed medical studies of NDEs in the United States and Europe. In this chapter, we will present only veridical (verifiable) evidence, from peer reviewed journals which show the strong likelihood of life beyond the physical world from literally thousands of cases. There are many anecdotal stories that are probably perfectly valid (you may well know someone who has experienced an NDE) but we do not include those in this presentation.
Before you watch the video, please answer these questions:
1. What would be satisfactory evidence for you of a soul that can survive bodily death? 2. What would be satisfactory evidence of a life beyond this physical world/universe?
Presentation:
Section 1. Evidence for the Existence of a Soul:
First, let’s define some terms. What constitutes “clinical death”? This is the starting point for all studies of NDEs. You can see from the diagram below that we are using the standard definition -- “The absence of electrical activity in the cerebral cortex (flat EEG) and in the lower brain (shown by fixed and dilated pupils and the absence of gag reflex).” With no electrical activity in the brain, we should not be able to see, hear or comprehend sensory stimuli, and we should not be conscious or capable of thinking.
What are the common aspects of NDEs? After bodily death, a transphysical form of consciousness (like a “soul”) leaves the physical body. Frequently, this soul goes through what appears to be a tunnel and rises above its physical body. Much of the time this soul is able to see what is going on in the room and even outside the room. People in this state often are aware of what is happening in the operating room -- and even beyond it, such as a waiting room. They can hear what is being said and often relate these comments to the person who made them. Another common attribute of an NDE is going to “the other side”. Some experience meeting deceased relatives and some are greeted by Jesus. A loving white light is also a frequent experience.
72 FNTC – Evidence of a Soul From Near Death Experiences (NDEs)
All of this has been collected and verified by the Gallup Study of NDEs (1982), as well as about 50 other studies assembled by Dr. Janice Holden, Dr. Pim van Lommel, Dr. Samuel Parnia (University of Southampton Study), and the University of Virginia medical school. Following is a larger list of such studies for your reference.
Five Major Medical Studies of Near Death Experiences
1. Parnia, Sam et al. 2014 “AWARE – Awareness during Resuscitation – A Prospective Study (University of Southampton),” Journal of Resuscitation (October 6, 2014). http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300- 9572%2814%2900739-4/fulltext. 2. Van Lommel, MD, Pim; R. van Wees, V. Meyers, Vincent, and I. Elfferich, 2001. “Near Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands.” The Lancet. QR 22 NDEs Vol. 358, Issue 9298, pp 2039 – 2045. 3. Ring, Kenneth. S. Cooper, and C. Tart, 1999. Mindsight: Near- Death Breen http:// Clips and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind. magisqr.com/022 (Palo Alto, CA: William James Center for Consciousness Studies at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology). 4. Morse, Melvin, P. Castillo, and D. Venecia, et al. 1986. “Childhood Near-Death Experiences.” American Journal of Diseases of Children, 140, pp. 110-1113. 5. Morse, M., D. Connor, and D. Tyler, 1985. “Near-Death Experiences in a Pediatric Population.” American Journal of Diseases of Children, 139, pp.595-600.
Section 2. Four Principal Kinds of Veridical Evidence for Survival of Self- Consciousness After Clinical Death (See
We are speaking of thousands of cases across multiple studies by different researchers published in peer reviewed journals. All the above studies and cases consistently uncovered the following veridical evidence for human consciousness after bodily death:
a. Clinically dead people see and hear experiential data which occurred during their clinical death. After clinical death, people experience themselves in a transphysical (soul-like) state which is conscious, capable of seeing, hearing, remembering, and recalling. During that time many can see and hear what is taking place in the operating room and beyond. Patients commonly identify what the doctors and nurses look like, the machines that are nearby, the procedures that are taking place, and even unusual circumstances taking place. These unusual features would have
73
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + been virtually impossible to know about, if they had not been seen by the clinically dead patients. Patients frequently pass through the walls into waiting rooms, and see and hear friends and relatives there – reporting what they had said. One patient identified the place of his dentures and the nurse who put it there after they were reported lost by hospital officials. These kinds of reports from clinically dead people are difficult to explain if they were not really alive in a transphysical form seeing and hearing the events reported. In view of the fact that there are thousands of such cases, it is difficult to deny that something truly transphysical is going on after bodily death. b. 80% of blind people see during clinical death. According to the studies of Dr. Kenneth Ring (Ring, Cooper, and Tart) approximately 80% of blind people see after clinical death – when they return to their bodies, they are blind again. During this time they too were able to report veridical (verifiable) data. The studies of van Lommel and Holden confirm the same phenomenon of the blind seeing “outside of their physical bodies.”
http:// http:// http:// http:// magisqr.com/077 magisqr.com/076 magisqr.com/075 magisqr.com/074
74 FNTC – Evidence of a Soul From Near Death Experiences (NDEs)
FOUR KINDS OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF SURVIVAL OF CONSCIOUSNESS
1. Veridical (verifiable) aspects of NDEs (all five major studies). 2. 80% of blind people see during NDEs (Ring and van Lommel studies). 3. Vast majority of children/adults experience little death anxiety after NDE (Morse and Greyson studies). 4. Similarities among in the ten major characteristics of NDEs (all five major studies).
These four kinds of veridical data will be described and explained in detail in the next episode – Chapter 1.
Chapter Review: Medical science has entered into the domain of a transphysical soul and a heavenly domain through modern resuscitation techniques. People in the midst of an NDE pass through walls, see where their missing dentures were placed and hear what their friends were saying about them in the waiting room, the blind see--many for the first time ever--and children meet Jesus or long deceased relatives they never knew existed. People experiencing an NDE seem to lose their fear of death while those who did not--experience a marked increase in the fear of death. We will continue this study in our next episode. See quotations from doctors who performed the studies at
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Three, Chapter 5:
1. What is the definition of “clinical death”? http:// 2. How does that definition play a role in Near Death Experiences? magisqr.com/079
3. What do you think about NDEs as evidence of a soul and life after death?
4. How would you explain people blind from birth suddenly being able to see while they were clinically dead?
5. How would you explain a clinically dead child meeting a relative they never knew existed, and learning facts that were later verified by parents or others?
6. Which, if any, of the four kinds of veridical evidence did you find most compelling? If you answer “None”, why?
Lots of notes:
75
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + Bigger Spaces, Bigger Notes – A Whole Page
76 FNTC –Near Death Experiences (NDEs) Continued
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Four, Chapter 1
Near Death Experiences (NDEs) Continued (00:55 ~ 6:04) .
In this chapter, (continuing from the previous chapter) we will see a more detailed explanation of the medical studies of NDEs. We will learn how these are far more than anecdotal stories passed from person to person. The evidence has strong veridical features, which are difficult, if not impossible, to explain by brain physiology, pharmaceuticals, oxygen deprivation, hallucination, and other physical causes.
77
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + Introduction (00:55 ~ 6:04)
If you remember from our last episode, we were discussing the various studies of Near Death Experiences (NDEs). Recall that all the people studied were clinically dead -- marked by an absence of electrical activity in the cerebral cortex (flat EEG) and in the lower brain (fixed and dilated pupils and absence of gag reflex). We examined four types of veridical evidence:
a. Reports of unusual data taking place during clinical deaths which were verified by independent researchers after the fact. b. 80% of blind people see during clinical death. c. Those having an NDE have significantly lowered death anxiety. d. Those having an NDE met deceased relatives and friends and were able to report hitherto unknown facts upon returning to their bodies.
In the last episode, we noted that there were three major features of near death experiences that could not be explained by physiological causes – and required transphysical (“soul-like”) consciousness, sight, hearing, and recall outside the body:
• Reports of verifiable data outside of the operating room (e.g. in waiting rooms and outside the hospital) when patients are clinically dead and confined to the operating room. • 80% of blind people reporting verifiable data seen during clinical death. • Significant lowering of death anxiety in virtually everyone who has had an NDE -- which has no known physiological cause.
How can this be explained by any typical physiological cause – hallucination, oxygen deprivation, pain protocols (pharmaceuticals), temporal lobe stimulation, etc? All three of these data – in hundreds of cases --- studies after study – simply elude physical explanation. If not a transphysical soul, we are unable to explain them.
Before you watch the video, here are some questions to consider. How do you explain the above three data? Can you find a physical explanation that does not require a transphysical soul?
Presentation:
Section 1. The Criterion for Accepting a Case for an NDE as “Accurate”:
Where do we go from here? Let’s move ahead and check out some of the evidence and conclusions formed from these studies. Using extremely stringent criterion, researcher Dr. Janice Holden found 107 cases, spread over thirty-nine studies by thirty-seven authors, of reported veridical evidence. Here is what she found:
If a case study had one detail found to be inaccurate, it was classified as “inaccurate”. Holden determined only 8% of the cases reviewed had any inaccuracies. She found 37% of the cases to be perfectly accurate, and 55% to be “not inaccurate, but not perfectly verifiable by independent researchers.” If we eliminate the
78 FNTC –Near Death Experiences (NDEs) Continued cases that she could not perfectly verify (55% of 107 cases), then 48 cases remain (45% of 107 cases). Of those 48 remaining cases, only 8 of them (8% of 107 total cases) were found to have any inaccuracy while 40 (37% of 107 cases) were found to be perfectly accurate. Thus, of the cases which could be perfectly verified, only 17% were inaccurate (8 cases of a total of 48) while 83% were found to be perfectly accurate (40 out of 48 cases). How can this be explained?
Section 2. Examples of Why Researchers Believe the Veridical evidence for NDEs is significant:
Here are some quotations from recent studies reported in peer-reviewed journals:
Dr. Pim van Lommel’s study reported in Britain’s most respected medical journal The Lancet:
How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?...Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience. NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation. In our prospective study of patients that were clinically dead (flat EEG, showing no electrical activity in the cortex and loss of brain stem function evidenced by fixed dilated pupils and absence of the gag reflex) the patients report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, or memory from early childhood occurred, as well as perceptions from a position out and above their ‘dead’ body.32
Dr. Kenneth Ring’s study of the near death experiences of blind people:
Among those narrating NDEs, not only did their experiences conform to the classic NDE pattern, but they did not even vary according to the specific sight status of our respondents; that is, whether an NDEr was born blind or had lost his or her sight in later life, or even (as in a few of our cases) had some minimal light perception only, the NDEs described were much the same. Furthermore, eighty percent of our thirty-one blind respondents claimed to be able to see during their NDEs or OBEs, and, like Vicki and Brad, often told us that they could see objects and persons in the physical world, as well as features of otherworldly settings.33
32 See Pim van Lommel, et al 2001. “Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands.” In The Lancet. Vol. 358, Issue 9298, pp. 2039-2045. 33 See Kenneth Ring, S. Cooper, and C. Tart. 1999. Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind (Palo Alto, CA: William James Center for Consciousness Studies at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology). pp. 81-82.
79
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + Many rigorous studies of psychological changes produced in both children and adults by near death experiences have been carried out at the Division of Perceptual Studies, Department of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine. One such study conducted by Dr. Bruce Greyson, showed the following:
OBJECTIVES: This literature review examined the evidence regarding explanations proposed to explain NDEs, including expectation, birth memories, altered blood gases, toxic or metabolic hallucinations, and neurochemical and neuroanatomical models…
RESULTS: NDEs typically produce positive changes in attitudes, beliefs, and values, but may also lead to interpersonal and intrapsychic problems…
CONCLUSIONS: The mystical consciousness and higher mental activity during NDEs, when the brain is severely impaired, challenge current models of brain/mind interaction and may occasionally lead to more complete models for the understanding of consciousness.34
What about the children, from two significant NDE studies, who had almost no death anxiety after recovery? Recall that other children who suffered clinical death and recovered without experiencing an NDE had measurably higher death anxiety than the norm. These higher and lower levels of death anxiety continued into adulthood. If we really can’t control our death anxieties, it appears the lower level of anxiety is probably tied to the “afterlife experience” in the NDE.
The above major studies show us how common it is for NDEs to include visits to relatives long since deceased. This is especially true in the case of young children where an “agenda” would be unlikely. Children often described these relatives in their younger years as their parents might have known them. Many had passed away before the children were born. This is circumstantial evidence but is so common, it is too important for researchers to ignore. This evidence was put forth in the van Lommel, Ring, Morse, Moody and Gallup studies. In addition to meeting deceased relatives and friends, many patients encounter a loving white light and Jesus (the experience of Jesus was particularly common to children). These encounters with a loving white light and Jesus were also prevalent in all the above studies. The Department of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine has carried out significant research in the classification of patient’s experiences of the “loving white light”, deceased relatives and friends, and Jesus in a “heavenly domain.”35 Here is a typical example of one patient’s encounter with a loving white light from Raymond Moody’s study of NDEs:
I became very weak, and I fell down. I began to feel a sort of drifting, a movement of my real being in and out of my body, and to hear beautiful music. I floated on down the hall and out the door onto the screened-in
34 Bruce Greyson, M.D. 2010 “Near-death experiences: clinical implications” in Archives of Clinical Psychiatry http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0101-60832007000700015&script=sciarttext&tlng=en 35 See in particular the study of Dr. Emily Kelly 2001 “Near-Death Experiences with Reports of Meeting Deceased People” in Death Studies, Vol. 25: 229-249, pp. 229-249. 80 FNTC –Near Death Experiences (NDEs) Continued
porch.There, it almost seemed that clouds, a pink mist really, began to gather around me, and then I floated right straight on through the screen, just as though it weren’t there, and up into this pure crystal clear light, an illuminating white light. It was beautiful and so bright, so radiant, but it didn’t hurt my eyes. It’s not any kind of light you can describe on earth. I didn’t actually see a person in this light, and yet it has a special identity, it definitely does. It is a light of perfect understanding and perfect love…. And all during this time, I felt as though I was surrounded by an overwhelming love and compassion.36
In closing this chapter, we might say that while some have tried to pass off these NDE phenomena as being related to drugs, hallucinations, stimulation of the temporal lobe, oxygen deprivation,
1. The patients who clinically died were of two sorts -- those who had an NDE and those who did not. Dr. Pim van Lommel summarizes the problem of the so-called “natural cause” explanation of NDEs as follows:
Our most striking finding was that Near-Death Experiences do not have a physical or medical root. After all, 100 percent of the patients suffered a shortage of oxygen, 100 percent were given morphine-like medications, 100 percent were victims of severe stress, so those are plainly not the reasons why 18 per cent had Near-Death Experiences and 82 percent didn’t. If they had been triggered by any one of those things, everyone would have had Near-Death Experiences.37
2. There is a second more critical problem with the “natural cause” explanation – namely, that they cannot explain the near perfect accuracy with which empirically verifiable claims were made by people who were clinically dead. Hallucinations, drugs, and oxygen deprivation, etc., do not lead to accurate visual and auditory perception – they either obscure it or negate it. Furthermore, the natural cause explanations do not explain how 80% of blind people see during clinical death. Why? Because there is no natural explanation for their sight – blind people do not have a natural physical apparatus with which to see.
3. Dr. Mario Beauregard (neuroscientist at the University of Arizona) and Dr. Pim van Lommel have made an assiduous study of all contemporary natural explanations of NDEs, and have found that the NDE experience is significantly qualitatively different from these natural explanations – from pharmaceuticals, to temporal lobe stimulation, to psychic upsurges at the moment of death, etc. See Beauregard’s important 2012 study called Brain Wars: The Scientific Battle Over
36 Raymond A. Moody 1975. Life After Life (New York: Harper Collins).pp. 53-54. 37 van Lommel, et al 2001, p. 2044. 81
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + the Existence of the Mind and the Proof that Will Change the Way We Live (New York: Harper One).
Chapter Review: The best and most reasonable conclusion to the NDE case studies would seem to be the affirmation of a transphysical soul. That is, something that survives bodily death. Though there are skeptics, no one has been able to offer a real answer to these real life experiences, or maybe we should say, real death experiences.
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Four, Chapter 1:
1. What is the criterion for an “accurate” case study?
2. What is unusual about the experience of most blind people who have an NDE?
3. What commonly happened to children who had a NDE?
4. What is a lasting effect of nearly all children who experienced a NDE?
5. Do you think the empirical evidence shown in these multiple studies indicates the likelihood of an afterlife, soul, and God?
6. Do you know anyone who has experienced a NDE. If so, did their experience follow any of the above experiences?
http://magisqr.com/073 Notes:
82 FNTC – More Evidence of a Soul from the Five Transcendental Desires
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Four, Chapter 2
More Evidence of a Soul from the Five Transcendental Desires (6:05 ~ 25:50) .
In This Chapter, we move from learning about evidence for a soul from NDEs to learning about a soul from the Five Transcendental Desires. You may or may not have heard of the “Transcendentals” before but you should have a college level understanding of them when you are finished with this chapter. FYI, they date back to Plato and Aristotle. We’ll do this like one would eat an elephant, one bite at a time.
83
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Episode Four, Chapter 2 – More Evidence of a Soul from the Five Transcendental Desires
Introduction (6:05 ~ 25:50): What do you think of when you hear, “Transcendental Desires”? Here is how the dictionary describes “transcendental”:
Before you watch the video, consider this:
1. Have you ever desired something that you knew could not be fulfilled in this world? If so, what was it, and why do you think you desired it if its fulfillment is not possible in the here and now? 2. Have you ever seen or heard something that, though it may have been quite good, was just not perfect? If so, how did you know it was not perfect unless you have an idea of what perfect would be?
There are five Transcendental Desires that were recognized around 400 BC by Plato and Aristotle. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and many other philosophers have spoken of these same desires through the centuries. Let’s look at how these transcendental desires indicate the presence of God to your consciousness.
Section 1. Evidence of the presence of God to our QR 24 consciousness. Proof from http://magisqr.com/0225 What are these transcendental desires? They are our built-in Transcende desires for: ntal Desires
i. Perfect and unconditional Truth ii. Perfect and unconditional Love iii. Perfect and unconditional Justice (Goodness)
84 FNTC – More Evidence of a Soul from the Five Transcendental Desires
iv. Perfect and unconditional Beauty v. Perfect and unconditional Being (Home)38
Here is the basic argument of Plato which has influenced generations of philosophers:
1. One of the most basic experiences we have is the experience of imperfections in the world around us. We seem to be instinctively aware of imperfections in our understanding of things (truth), imperfections in the love of others and even ourselves, imperfections in the justice or goodness of others and ourselves, imperfections in the beauty of the world around us, and imperfections in our sense of “being at home in the world.” Indeed, we seem to recognize every imperfection in these five areas – instinctively and endlessly. 2. How could we recognize these imperfections unless we had an awareness of what perfection in these five areas would be like? 3. As we shall see below, the source of our awareness of these five kinds of perfection would have to be the five kinds of perfection themselves – and these five kinds of perfection – perfect truth, love, justice/goodness, beauty and home/being – turn out to be the one perfect God.
It looks like we have a lot of explaining to do.
Four Step Argument From Transcendental Desire to a Soul
1. We have five desires for the perfect and unconditional - - the desire for perfect and unconditional truth, love, justice/goodness, beauty and being. 2. We must have an awareness of what we desire; therefore, we must have an awareness of perfect truth, love, justice/goodness, beauty and being. 3. We have the capacity to recognize every imperfection in our experience of truth, love, justice/goodness, beauty and being which would not be possible unless we were aware of perfection in them. 4. The source of our awareness of perfect truth, love, justice/goodness, beauty and being must be perfect truth, love, justice/kindness, beauty and being themselves.
Conclusion: If God is perfect truth, love, justice, beauty and being, then God is present to us when we are aware of imperfection in any of these “transcendentals” and we are, therefore, transcendent.
38 Note: Fr. Spitzer did not discuss the 5th Transcendental Desire (being/home) in the video due to time constraints. We are including it here so you have the complete list. The proof for Perfect Being is the same as the other transcendentals (explained further down in this chapter). 85
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Perfect Truth
Let’s start with the desire for perfect truth. We can explore this in four steps:
1. We have a very interesting ability. Every time we give an answer to a question, we have the ability to know whether that particular answer is the knowledge of “everything about everything.” As you may have discovered by now, you always seem to think that your answers are not the “knowledge of everything about everything” – that your knowledge is imperfect. And so you ask another question. We not only have a desire to know everything about everything, we have the capacity to know whether we have reached that goal at any point in our inquiry, and if we have not reached it – which at least for me has not yet occurred – we keep asking questions. We won’t be satisfied until we have finally gotten to our goal – the whole truth – knowledge of everything. By the way, if you did not know that your answer was not “everything about everything,” you would not ask another question – you would simply marvel blankly at the answer you have already gotten. But the fact is, we relentlessly ask questions because we are aware that our knowledge is imperfect and incomplete.
2. Now here is the crucial question. How can we always know that our knowledge is imperfect – and that we have not yet reached the goal of perfect knowledge – unless we had some idea of what perfect knowledge would be like? Think about it – if you had absolutely no awareness of what perfect knowledge would be like, you would not recognize any imperfection in your current knowledge – and so you would have no desire to ask a question – indeed you would not even be aware that there was a question to be asked. In a sense then, without this awareness of what perfect knowledge would be like, we would be unintelligent and uncreative because we would ask no questions. That would be too bad because Aristotle said – asking questions is the beginning of all knowledge and creativity.
Note: So what is this awareness of perfect knowledge? Well, it can’t be the knowledge of perfect knowledge, because if you knew that, you wouldn’t have any further questions – you would have perfect knowledge. So philosophers have talked about this as a tacit or notional awareness of what perfect knowledge would be like. It is something we can sense as a goal of our inquiry, but we have not yet brought it into focus – so that we explicitly know it. Many philosophers, such as Karl Rahner, call it a horizon – we are aware of a horizon of perfect knowledge, but like any horizon, it is beyond our reach -- we have not yet reached its full extent.
3. What could possibly be the source of our tacit awareness of “everything about everything?” Well, as you can imagine, it cannot be anything in this world – because all of the objects of our experience and all the ideas that we have are imperfect – inciting us to ask further questions. So we clearly did not get our tacit awareness of everything about everything from either our experience of the outside world or the ideas we already grasp. So where did we get it from?
86 FNTC – More Evidence of a Soul from the Five Transcendental Desires
Philosopher’s from Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas, to Rahner, Lonergan, and Coreth all say it must come from perfect knowledge itself – “perfect truth itself” – “the complete set of correct answers to the complete set of questions.” No other reality can produce the idea of perfect knowledge except the idea of perfect knowledge itself.
4. So what is the idea of perfect knowledge itself? As you might suspect, it is God. The proof of this is given in some of the steps of the metaphysical proof of God which we did not examine in our discussion of it in Episode Three, Chapter 3. Recall that we proved that there had to be one and only one uncaused reality which is unrestricted and absolutely simple. There are three other steps that we did not examine – the proof for why this God is the cause of everything else in reality, why it must be transtemporal, and why it must be perfectly intelligent – an unrestricted act of understanding. If you are interested in this proof see QR80. For the moment, let us assume that that proof is correct, and that “the idea of perfect knowledge itself” is a unique unrestricted act of understanding – which must be the God we proved in Episode Three, Chapter 3 above.
If the above reasoning is correct, then God is present to your consciousness – and not only that – his presence to you as “the idea of perfect knowledge” gives you a horizon of perfect knowledge, enabling you to ask questions ceaselessly and to create new ideas continuously in the wake of that questioning. God not only exists – he incites our continuous questioning and creativity.
Perfect Love
If that didn’t thoroughly exhaust you, then let’s go to our desire for perfect love. You will notice that this argument follows the same lines as the argument from our desire for perfect truth. We will give this argument in an abbreviated way in four steps, but you will be able to see the point.
1. We have the ability to notice imperfection in love – in both others and ourselves – in virtually every conceivable context. Amazingly enough, very small children can notice imperfection or inauthenticity in the love of parents, teachers, brothers and sisters, and friends – almost as well as adults. 2. How can we notice virtually every imperfection in the love of others and ourselves – continuously and endlessly, if we did not have some idea of what perfect love would be like? Stated the other way around, if we had no sense of the perfect ideal of love (what perfect love would be like), we would never notice any imperfection in love – we would be satisfied with any manifestation of affection – much like my wonderful dog -- who is not perturbed by my inauthenticity, distraction, desire to do something else, etc. 3. Once again we must ask what could be the source of our awareness of what perfect love would be like. The source of this awareness cannot be any kind of love which we have experienced in the outside world. Let’s face it – it is precisely this love that causes us to recognize imperfection in it. This has led many
87
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + philosophers to believe that the only possible source of our awareness of what perfect love would be like is perfect love itself.
4. What is perfect love? As you might suspect, it is the one God we proved in Episode Three, Chapter 3. The proof for this is not given in the Study Guide, but it is connected with the idea of absolute QR5 God simplicity, which we proved to be an attribute of the one God is Perfect in Step 5 of the metaphysical proof of God (Episode Three, Love Chapter 3). If any of you are interested in the formal proof for why the absolute simplicity of God entails that God be perfect http:// love, Check out QR5. magisqr.com/005
If we assume that the source of our awareness of perfect love is the one God (proved in the metaphysical proof), then we move to a two-fold conclusion – first, God is perfect love, and secondly, the perfectly loving God is present to our consciousness. Furthermore, when that perfectly loving God is present to us, we have a tacit awareness of what perfect love would be like, and this in turn, enables us to see imperfection in our love and the love of others – helping us to grow to evermore perfect kinds of love.
Perfect Justice/Goodness
As you might suspect, the argument concerning our desire for perfect justice/goodness, follows the very same lines as the one above for perfect love. It too can be set out in four steps.
1. We have the ability to notice imperfection in justice (goodness) – in both others and ourselves – in virtually every conceivable context. We not only notice unfairness (and evil) in individual people, but also in virtually every organization and institution. We can see unfairness in economic systems, judicial systems, educational systems, cultural institutions, and so forth. Our capacity to recognize imperfection in justice (goodness) seems to know no limits – resembling our capacity to recognize imperfection in knowledge and love. Again, little children have the ability to recognize unfairness in parents and teachers – even though their parents and teachers did not teach them how to do so.
2. How can we notice virtually every imperfection in the justice (goodness) of others, ourselves, organizations, institutions, systems, and society -- endlessly, if we do not have some idea of what perfect justice (goodness) would be like? Stated the other way around, if we had no sense of the perfect ideal of justice (goodness), we would never notice any imperfection in justice (goodness) – we would simply count “survival of the fittest” as our lot in life.
3. Once again we must ask what could be the source of our awareness of what perfect justice (goodness) would be like. The source of this awareness cannot be any kind of justice (goodness) that we have experienced in the outside world. Again, it is precisely this justice (goodness) that causes us to recognize imperfection in it. This has led many philosophers to believe that the only possible source of our awareness of what perfect justice (goodness) would be like is perfect justice (goodness) itself.
88 FNTC – More Evidence of a Soul from the Five Transcendental Desires
4. What is perfect justice (goodness)? As you might suspect, it is the one God we proved in Episode Three, Chapter 3. Again, the proof for this is not given in the Study Guide, but it is connected with the idea of absolute simplicity, which we proved to be an attribute of the one God QR23 – in Step 5 of the metaphysical proof of God (Episode Three, God is Chapter 3). If you are interested in a brief summary of the Perfect argument for why the absolute simplicity of God entails that Justice God be perfect justice (goodness), see QR23. http:// magisqr.com/023 What can we conclude from this? If the above reasoning is correct, then God is not only perfect intelligence and perfect love, he is also perfect justice (goodness). Furthermore, he is present to our consciousness as perfect justice (goodness), creating a horizon of perfect justice (goodness), which incites us to strive for ever greater forms of justice and goodness in ourselves, others, organizations, institutions, laws, ideals, government, culture, and every other aspect of human endeavor.
Perfect Beauty
The very same line of reasoning applies to perfect beauty as to perfect truth, love, and justice (goodness). At this juncture, it will only be necessary to present the first step of the argument, and you can figure out the other three steps from the line of reasoning given above.
1. We have the capacity to recognize imperfection in every dimension of every kind of beauty – artistic beauty, musical beauty, architectural beauty, literary beauty – and even beauty manifest in the human heart, human ideals, and human aspirations. Even when we are immersed in the most beautiful of nature walks or along a beautiful seascape, we always seem to strive for another angle – something more interesting – more beautiful. We try to enhance beauty in music by making it more complex – and sometimes by simply “turning up the volume.” We see endless imperfections in the beauty of others, and ourselves and strive to overcome those imperfections.
2. How can we notice virtually every imperfection in all of the above forms of beauty – continuously and endlessly? You should be able to answer this question – without even being a Platonist philosopher.
3. What could be the source of our tacit awareness of what perfect beauty would be like? Again, you should be able to answer this question.
4. What is perfect beauty? Please use the same reasoning from the QR codes 5 and 23 (perfect love and perfect justice/goodness).
Now you draw the conclusion – what does this say about who God is and how he is present to our consciousness?
89
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + Final Conclusion
If the above reasoning is correct, then God is not only the unique unrestricted uncaused reality who is the cause of everything else; he is also perfect intelligence, perfect love, perfect justice (goodness), and perfect beauty. Furthermore, he is present to our consciousness as the source of our awareness of perfect truth, love, justice (goodness), and perfect beauty – and as such, he incites us to creativity in every form of human endeavor – in the striving for greater truth, love, justice (goodness), and beauty. God not only gives us a transcendent soul (manifest in the evidence of near death experience), He also fills our soul with the horizon of his perfection, which causes us to be everything that we are – an image of himself.
Chapter Review: If we are not over our heads in the transcendentals, we are probably at least up to our necks -- Perfect Truth, Perfect Love, Perfect Justice/Goodness, and Perfect Beauty. The tacit awareness of these transcendental notions allows us, or causes us, to desire them evermore perfectly in our lives. We seem to be in a continual state of dissatisfaction about our level of understanding about love, justice, and beauty – recognizing virtually every imperfection in them. How can we know virtually every imperfection in these areas of human endeavor without having some sense of what they are in their perfection? And if we are aware of what they are in their perfection, what could be the source of this awareness? As we saw above, our awareness of perfection in these areas must come from perfection itself – perfect truth, perfect love, perfect justice (goodness), and perfect beauty.
As it turns out, all of these perfections must be absolutely simple – and as we implied in our metaphysical proof of God, there can be only one absolute simplicity. Hence, only one reality – the one absolutely simple reality – can be perfect truth, perfect love, perfect justice (goodness), and perfect beauty. The unique unrestricted absolutely simple uncaused reality must also be perfect truth, love, justice (goodness) and beauty – God. This God is the source of our transcendental desires – and hence, the inspiration of our creativity in these four vital areas. In sharing his essence with us, God causes us to be like himself – though imperfectly – but nevertheless – like himself.
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Four, Chapter 2:
1. What does “transcendental” mean? 2. What are the five transcendental desires that philosophers since Plato have recognized as the key objectives of human life and endeavor? 3. How do we know that we have desires for perfect truth, love, justice (goodness), and beauty and being? (Hint: it has to do with imperfection and the first two steps of the above transcendental arguments.) 4. What is not the source of our awareness of perfect truth, love, justice (goodness), beauty and being? (Hint: look at Step 3 in the above transcendental arguments.) 5. What must be the source of our awareness of perfect truth, love, justice (goodness), beauty and being? (Hint: look at Steps 3&4 of the above transcendental arguments.) 90 FNTC – More Evidence of a Soul from the Five Transcendental Desires
6. If the above transcendental arguments are correct, then what must God be in Himself? 7. If the above transcendental arguments are correct, how must God be present to our consciousness?
More Notes:
91
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Four, Chapter3
A Summary of the Evidence for a Creator and a Soul plus the Question of Atheism (25:50 ~ 36:30)
In this Chapter, we will give a brief explanation of the five different datasets we have examined pointing to our transcendental soul, and a Transcendent intelligent Creator. Father then turns his attention to whether atheism is based on science or reason – or something else – such as personal choices.
92 FNTC – A Summary of the Evidence for a Creator and a Soul plus the Question of Atheism
Episode Four, Chapter 3: A Summary of the Evidence for a Creator and a Soul plus the Question of Atheism
Introduction: (25:54 ~ 36:30): Well ladies and gentlemen; the first paragraph was for the chapter title. Now let’s get to the introduction part of this chapter. We have now reviewed evidence for God and a soul from five different sources:
1. Space-Time Geometry Proofs (particularly the B-V-G Proof) implying a beginning of physical reality. 2. Entropy indicating a beginning of our universe. 3. Anthropic Coincidences implying supernatural design of our universe. 4. Near Death Experiences implying the existence of our transphysical. 5. Five Transcendental Desires implying a transcendental soul.
In light of these five kinds of evidence (as well as the metaphysical proof of God), we might wonder why someone would be an atheist. Perhaps some people will deny all five of the above kinds of evidence as well as the metaphysical proof of God, but if they do, it cannot be arbitrary. Remember the first rule of logic and evidence – “arbitrarily asserted, then arbitrarily denied.” Well, the opposite holds as well – “arbitrarily denied, then arbitrarily re-asserted.” In other words, if one gives no reason for denying the B-V- G Proof – or the evidence from entropy, or the fine-tuning implied by anthropic coincidences, etc., then an opponent can simply reassert them. The fact is, the evidence for God and a soul is quite compelling – and has certainly not been arbitrarily asserted. It therefore deserves evidence for its denial. As we have seen above, it is difficult to “get out of” the B-V-G Proof or the entropy evidence for a beginning of physical reality without creating exceedingly complex and convoluted solutions, which seem to violate Ockham’s Razor. The same holds true for the evidence of anthropic coincidences and near death experiences. One cannot simply say – “I deny them all – arbitrarily.” The burden of proof – the requirement to give coherent evidence -- rests on those who consider themself to be reasonable and responsible. If such evidence cannot be coherently given, then the evidence for God and a soul stands.
Before you watch the video, please consider the following questions:
1. With all of the evidence presented so far, why do you think some people might choose to be atheists? 2. Do you think that atheism is a matter of evidence or personal choice?
93
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + Presentation:
Section 1. Why Atheism?
We should begin with the fundamental notion that evidence for God and the soul alone will not be perfectly persuasive – even if the evidence is overwhelming. If we do not want to believe in God, we can deny the B-V-G Proof – even though Alexander Vilenkin claims that it should convince even an unreasonable person. We can also deny the evidence of thousands of cases of near death experiences that report data accurately described by blind people during clinical death – if we do not want to believe it. We can also deny the existence of an uncaused reality – even though it would necessitate that nothing exists – if we do not want to believe it. We can claim that low entropy occurred at the Big Bang by pure chance – even if the odds against it are the same as a monkey typing the corpus of Shakespeare. I think you are probably getting the point. Belief in God and our transcendent soul not only requires evidence, but a mind and heart open to believing in what the evidence shows. Evidence is absolutely essential for us to ground our beliefs in reason and reality. But by itself, it will not be perfectly persuasive. We must have faith as well.
Can atheists reasonably deny all of the above evidence? It is hard for me to believe that they can – and I have certainly not heard any of them successfully refute the B-V-G Proof, the evidence of all near death experiences, the proof of an uncaused reality, and the entropy evidence. Though some have used a multiverse to explain the low entropy of the universe, I have not heard of any who have not acknowledged that it (low entropy) is exceedingly improbable and that its occurrence is astonishing indeed. So, what’s the point?
As we have seen in Episode One (Chapter 1), science cannot disprove the existence of God, and cannot show that the universe does not need a Creator. The limits of scientific method make such claims impossible to substantiate. Indeed, all the evidence seems to point to the contrary. In view of this, why choose to be an atheist instead of an agnostic? An agnostic does not have to reject all of the above evidence, but only to declare uncertainty about it. This allows agnostics the option to resolve their doubts about the evidence, to find additional evidence, and to make a future decision in favor of that evidence. But atheists, because they reject the existence of God, are likewise forced to reject the above evidence – which is quite difficult for someone who is trying to be rational and responsible.
So why reject God (and the probative evidence for God) instead of continuing one’s search for the truth? There must be something in the idea of “God” or “religion” that engenders either negative feelings (e.g., perhaps anger, resentment, fear, or guilt) or runs contrary to one’s fundamental desires and choices – about identity, life, others, human dignity, etc. Frequently, both negative feelings and desire/choices are involved in the decision. Sometimes these feelings, desires and choices are subconscious -- and atheists are not fully cognizant of them. This also holds true for theists and agnostics. Nevertheless, these feelings, desires, and choices seem to move atheists beyond the domain of rationality and evidence into the choice of rejecting a Transcendent (Supreme) Being.
94 FNTC – A Summary of the Evidence for a Creator and a Soul + the Question of Atheism
Theists also must make a choice to believe in and relate to a Supreme Being. Though the five kinds of evidence (and the metaphysical proof of God) given above -- in their complementarity and mutual corroboration – render a probative and probable conclusion about God, it is not sufficient to move even a theist to belief and a relationship with that Deity. There must be, as it were, a movement of the heart – a choice, an openness, and a resultant desire to be in communion with the Supreme Being in whom one chooses to believe. Hence, the choice to be an atheist and a theist goes beyond rationality and evidence (though rationality and evidence can give strong support for theism).
Ultimately, this decision is a choice about how to live – a choice about what is important, a choice about who is sovereign – a perfect reality, or ourselves and a choice about how to interpret (or ignore) the evidence in light of these other personal choices. If we are open to a sovereign beyond ourselves, open to a life of prayer and worship, open to the transcendental dignity of others, and ourselves and open to the moral and ethical consequences of those choices, the evidence given above will likely be quite persuasive. But if we are not open to this kind of life and worldview, then the evidence given above will be nothing more than “the ramblings of theists” which can be ignored and marginalized without even investigating it. Recall the second rule of logic in evidence – there are far more errors of omission than commission, and the greatest errors of omission occur when we choose to ignore or marginalize probative sets of data and evidence because we dislike what they are saying and where they are pointing.
That being said, what are some of the motives that atheists profess for their choice to reject God (and the evidence for him)?
1. Atheism and Suffering. According to the case studies of Ignace Lepp (Atheism in our Time39), one primary motive for atheism arises out of an inability to give a positive interpretation to suffering. This causes people to counterpose suffering and love, which in turn incites the thought that God must be unloving (or even mean- spirited). In many cases, this thought induces anger and resentment, and as such, can lead to the rejection of God. It is interesting to note that many of these individuals do not reject the idea of God, but much more the person of God who seems to have allowed them to suffer. In Christianity, suffering has a positive interpretation, and even a set of prayers and methods to turn suffering into a means of love (and growth in love). Christians should help this group to bring positive meaning into their suffering. Note: this kind of atheism is not based on rational evidence, but on an emotive disposition – involving sadness, and resentment – which leads to a personal choice. (Magis Center addresses
39 Ignace Lepp was an ardent communist, Marxist, and atheist who saw the inherent weaknesses in both atheism and Marxism through his studies of psychology. He converted to Christianity and later became a Catholic priest. He explores the psychology of atheism through many cases in his work Atheism In Our Time 1965 (New York: Macmillan). 95
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + happiness and suffering issues in two series’, “Happiness” and “Happiness, Suffering and the love of God”. Video’s and workbooks are available. Please see QR33 for additional information.)
QR33
Happiness /
http://magisqr.com/033Happiness,
Suffering … 2. Atheism and the Rejection of Moral Authority Beyond the Self. Friedrich Nietzsche declared himself to be an atheist as a part of “his will to power” (the assertion of his own individuality and autonomy over and against everybody and everything else). In his view, God would have to interfere with this “will to power” and so God had40 to be rejected. We see this kind of Nietzschean atheism in people who do not want to be responsible to a moral authority above or beyond themselves (e.g., God). Again, note that this is a choice based on a desire – not a decision made on the basis of evidence. Furthermore, this choice requires that we decide for ourselves what is right or wrong – without the help of divine wisdom and law. This has always been a scary prospect for me, because as I always say, “Give me five minutes, and I can rationalize anything.” Additionally, I need the help of God’s grace to live according to his wisdom and law, and so I find faith to be invaluable in reaching my true potential and becoming my true self – connecting with perfect truth, love, justice (goodness), and beauty. God does not have to interfere with our individuality and authority – He can help us bring our own free decisions to fulfillment through His wisdom and grace.
3. Atheism and the Allegation of “Wishful Thinking.” Sigmund Freud declared himself to be an atheist because he felt that religion was essentially “wishful thinking” or an “illusion.” Many people who subscribe to atheism do not want to be considered weak, naïve, or reliant on “a crutch,” and so they reject God to engender a sense of personal strength and authentic regard for the truth. Freud’s most well-known student, Carl Jung, disagreed with him and declared that religion was not wishful thinking, but induced by a sense of God’s presence within us. This is confirmed by Rudolf Otto’s analysis of the numinous experience in comparative cultures throughout history (The Idea of the Holy). Freud’s contentions also run contrary to the work of Mircea Eliade (the greatest41 philosopher of comparative religion ) as well as the work of the American Psychiatric Association. Please note – 42Freud does not 43 Friedrich Nietzsche 1968 The Will to Power trans by Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale (New York: 40Vintage) pp 85 -145. See Rudolf Otto. 1958. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of
41 the Divine and its Relation to the Rational. (New York: Oxford University Press). See Mircea Eliade 1987. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. (New York: Harcourt 42 Brace Jovanovich). The 2004 study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry indicates that religion is so deeply intrinsic43 to human consciousness that those who reject it are susceptible to increased suicide rates, familial tensions, drug use, and a sense of meaninglessness and despondency. See Dervic K, Oquendo M, Grunebaum M, Ellis S, Burke A, Mann JJ, 2004. “Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt.” In
96 FNTC – A Summary of the Evidence for a Creator and a Soul + the Question of Atheism
appeal to reason for his atheism, but rather to the avoidance of what he deems is wishful thinking (a choice). According to Jung, Otto, and Eliade – among many others, Freud falsely attributed our interest in religion to the avoidance of fear (wishful thinking). The above philosophers and the American Psychiatric Association show that our religious interest has very little to do with avoidance of fear (wishful thinking), but rather with following one the most deeply engrained psychic intuitions within human consciousness -- a sense of the sacred and Transcendent God within us. If you are looking for detailed explanations of the evidence for the interior presence of God to human consciousness check out Robert Spitzer, The Soul’s Upward Yearning: Evidence of our Transcendent Nature from Experience and Reason (Ignatius Press 2015).
4. Atheism and Historical Revisionism. In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx reinterprets the history of economics and politics as fundamentally a class struggle between the merchant class (the bourgeoisie) and the laborers (the proletariat). There is an implication throughout that religion has caused the proletariat to endure their unjust situation by focusing them on a “life beyond.” As a result, the proletariat did not rise up in revolution – which Marx deemed necessary for economic justice. Marx is but one of many philosophers and historians who have tried to blame the injustices in the world on religion. However, these revisionist views of history ignore the fact that religion gave rise to social order and laws, that the prophets continuously spoke out against social injustice and championed the cause of widows, orphans, and the poor, that Christian teaching within the Roman Empire eventually led to the overcoming of the injustices of slavery, and that Christianity gave rise to the first public education systems, social welfare systems, and healthcare systems. Even today, the largest international educational, social welfare, and healthcare systems are based in religion. No doubt, there were many religious people who did not follow the teachings of their leaders, publicly sinned, and even perpetrated injustice – but these people do not represent the majority of religious adherents – and they certainly did not live up to the momentum of justice and equality promoted by their founders. Any objective view of the role of religion in history reveals a huge positive world-changing momentum – not something unjust and harmful.44
5. Other Personal Motives for Atheism. There are many personal motives for the rejection of God/religion. Frequently these motives are not so much a rejection of God, but a rejection of religion. Many individuals became acquainted with God in their childhood as a being to be feared – a being who is disrespectful, demanding, contemptuous, and hateful. Even though these views of God are completely contrary to the Father of Jesus Christ (portrayed as the father in the Parable of the Prodigal
American Journal of Psychiatry (Vol. 161, No. 12). pp 2303-2308. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=177228.
44 See Christopher Dawson 1991 Religion and the Rise of Western Culture (New York: Image). 97
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + Son), these “false images” of God persist into adulthood causing people to grow distant, resentful, and retributive. Frequently these attitudes lead to the rejection of God and religion all together. Again, it is incumbent upon Christians to convey the correct teaching about God from Jesus. If you are interested in a detailed explanation of this, check has written a book on this entitled God So Loved the World: Clues to Our Transcendent Destiny from the Revelation of Jesus (Ignatius 2015).
Let’s move from atheism to agnosticism for a moment. As we noted above, agnosticism simply means “don’t know,” and manifests uncertainty about the existence of God and the evidence for it. There are many causes of this uncertainty – many individuals simply do not apportion the time or psychic energy to study the evidence carefully – and so they don’t make a judgment about the evidence, because they really do not understand it. Frequently they don’t even know that the evidence exists. This is not a particularly good reason for being an agnostic – it is simply a proxy for indifference and apathy. Another common reason for agnosticism might be called “persistent naturalism,” which is a fear of proposing a supernatural explanation until every possible and natural explanation has been ruled out. As noted earlier, every possible natural explanation can never be ruled out, because we don’t know every possible natural explanation, and we can never know whether we have discovered every possible natural explanation (we would have to know everything about everything). Thus, this viewpoint rules out belief in the supernatural by default – “you simply cannot get there from here.”
Naturalism is a proper perspective when doing science, but science does not exhaust the whole of human endeavor. Science intentionally restricts itself to observations – and therefore to the natural world. But human endeavor is not restricted to the natural world. There are no infinities in nature, but there are in mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophical theology. If we assume that science exhausts human knowledge, we would never be able to think about ultimate causes and grounds of reality, transphysical dimensions, infinities, the unconditioned and uncaused, and even the transcendent. To assume that science (naturalism) is the only legitimate intellectual endeavor is like giving ourselves a gigantic lobotomy – cutting off, as it were, all inquiry into the spiritual, transcendent, infinite, eternal, unconditioned, and ultimate. Why would we want to do this when there is so much evidence for these transcendental areas – evidence from experience, from reason, near death experiences, and even physics itself? Furthermore, science does not exhaust the domain of the heart – that is, the domains of love, justice/goodness (ethics), art, and spirituality. As Sir Arthur Eddington (one of the greatest mathematical astronomers and cosmologists of all time) observed:
We all know that there are regions of the human spirit untrammeled by the world of physics. In the mystic sense of the creation around us, in the expression of art, in a yearning towards God, the soul grows upward and finds the fulfillment of something implanted in its nature. The sanction for this development is within us, a striving born with our consciousness or an Inner Light proceeding from a greater power than ours. Science can scarcely question this sanction, for the pursuit of science springs from a striving which the mind is impelled to follow, a questioning that will not be suppressed. Whether in the intellectual pursuits of science or in the 98 FNTC – A Summary of the Evidence for a Creator and a Soul + the Question of Atheism
mystical pursuits of the spirit, the light beckons ahead and the purpose surging in our nature responds.45
Perhaps it is best to follow the lead of Sir Arthur Eddington and to allow for both the intellectual pursuits of science and the mystical pursuits of the spirit – and if the intellectual pursuits of science and philosophy lead us also to the domain of the spirit – to follow it – instead of needlessly cutting ourselves off from our transcendental nature.
Chapter Review: There is an abundance of evidence for a transcendent intelligent Creator and a transphysical soul – space-time geometry proofs (particularly the B-V-G Proof), the evidence from entropy for a beginning, the implication of supernatural design from anthropic coincidences, the evidence of a transphysical soul from near death experiences, the evidence of the presence of God to human consciousness from our five transcendental desires, and the evidence for a unique, unrestricted, absolutely simple, uncaused cause from the metaphysical proof of God. This gives rise to the question of why a scientist – or anyone else for that matter – would be an atheist. The motive for atheism cannot be uncertainty about the above evidence, because that would only warrant agnosticism (not knowing). Atheism goes much further – to a rejection of God (and a wholesale, unnecessary dismissal of the above evidence). Why would someone do this? We determined that this is connected with personal feelings, desires, and choices. We explored five typical sets of these personal feelings, desires and choices, and showed that they do not warrant a rejection of God (and a wholesale, unnecessary rejection of the evidence for God):
1. The inability to explain suffering; 2. The rejection of a moral authority beyond the self; 3. Succumbing to the accusation of “wishful thinking;” 4. Revisionists histories that interpret religion as fundamentally negative; and 5. Personal motives that stem from a negative portrayal of God or religion.
We also examined persistent naturalism and showed that it was very much like atheism in the sense that it entails unnecessarily lobotomizing – cutting ourselves off from – our transcendent nature. We do not have to do this in order to embrace and value science, to explain and benefit from our suffering, to take responsibility for our actions and lives, to authentically embrace the truth, to seek justice, the common good, and social compassion, or to pursue the many disciplines that go beyond the narrow range of scientific inquiry. Indeed as we have suggested, these pursuits are better accomplished through belief in God – instead of the rejection of God. In the end we have but one responsibility – to be authentic to the whole truth – as it is revealed in the evidence of physics, metaphysics, the transphysical domain of near death experiences, our transcendental nature, and above all, the interior awareness of the transcendent
45 Sir Arthur Eddington, 1928. The Nature of the Physical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp. 327-28.
99
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + within our hearts. This is how we will be judged by others, ourselves, and quite probably, by the loving God.
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Four, Chapter 3:
1. What are the five separate areas we have used to provide evidence for the existence of God and/or a soul? Look at the intro or the summary.
2. What are the five major motivations for atheism?
3. How would you respond from your experience to someone who rejects God because of suffering?
4. How would you respond to a person who rejects God out of a refusal to acknowledge a higher moral authority?
5. How would you respond to a person who rejects God in order to avoid the accusation of “wishful thinking”?
6. How would you respond to a person who rejects God because of a negative interpretation of the role of religion in history?
7. How would you respond to a person who rejects God as a reaction to a negative portrayal of God learned during childhood?
8. Explain “persistent naturalism.”
9. What is the viewpoint of Sir Arthur Eddington toward the spiritual?
Notes:
100 FNTC – The Bible, Evolution and Aliens
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Four, Chapter 4
The Bible, Evolution and Aliens (36:30 ~ 57:20)
In this chapter, we will examine the Bible and answer some questions regarding possible conflicts with creation (ism) and evolution, science and the Bible, etc. We will also look at why the Bible is necessary and how it fits with the evidence for God we have already discussed. Lastly, we will look at the topic of aliens. Do they exist? Might they exist? Do you really care if they exist?
101
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + Episode Four - Chapter 4 – The Bible, Evolution and Aliens:
Introduction (36:30 ~ 57:20): There is a popular cultural myth that states that the Bible and science are in conflict. No doubt the biblical and scientific accounts of creation are quite different, but does that mean that the Bible and science are in conflict? As we shall see, it does not because theology and science have different objectives, methods, and, as one might expect, legitimate conclusions. Confusion about the Church’s position on “the Bible and science” has led to further confusion about the legitimate belief in evolution. Can Catholics believe in evolution? Are there limits to what Catholics can believe? As we shall see, Catholics have incredible latitude and freedom -- not only for belief, but also for belief in all legitimately established scientific facts and theories. Faith and science cannot be in conflict – for they come from the same source – the infinite mind and all loving heart of God. We will then consider the possibility of alien life forms – and even intelligent alien life forms – and how Catholics might respond to them.
Before you watch the video, here are a few questions for you to consider:
1. Do you think the Bible and science are in conflict? Why or why not?
2. Do you think Catholic doctrine and evolution are in conflict? Why or why not?
3. Do you think intelligent life is out there in our universe? If so, would it have a soul AND, would it need redemption?
Presentation:
Section 1. The Bible and Science - Is there a Contradiction?
There seems to be some disagreement between what the Bible tells us and what science teaches us. A prime example would be what the Bible says about creation and what science has discovered about creation. Is this an impasse where both cannot be right? Pope Pius Xll, in 1943, stated in a papal encyclical entitled Divino Afflante Spiritu, that the purpose of the Bible (in which God speaks through46 inspired authors) is to manifest truths of salvation. He goes on to tell us QR35 the Bible does not present scientific truths but sacred truths. Why Pius did he say this? Because he wanted to clarify that there are two approaches to creation and the understanding of nature: XII Divino http://magisqr.com/035Afflante a. The Bible – which reveals sacred truths necessary for salvation. Encyclical b. Science – which uses an empirical-mathematical method to give descriptions and explanations of the physical world.
Papal encyclicals are public letters written by the pope to the church. One purpose of an encyclical is to 46clarify and communicate the Church’s teaching on important matters.
102 FNTC – The Bible, Evolution and Aliens
Pope Pius XII also made another important clarification. He indicated that God’s inspiration of the biblical author was intertwined with the thoughts and capacities of the biblical author – God and the biblical author were “partners,” so to speak, in the writing of the biblical text. God is clearly the source of inspiration, and so the primary source of revelation, but He uses the biblical author to produce a work which can be understood by and appeal to the biblical author’s audience – situated within a particular culture and time.
Notice that this “partnership” theory of inspiration is quite different from the “dictation” theory. The dictation theory holds that God simply spoke to the mind of the biblical author, who in turn, wrote down what he “heard” -- verbatim. In this view, the biblical author plays only a transcriber’s role, while God does everything else, so that every word in the Bible is the truth of God – and all of it must be taken literally. Though some Christian denominations hold this view, Catholicism does not – which was clarified by Pope Pius XII’s encyclical.
The “partnership” theory of divine inspiration holds that the biblical author plays a role in the production of the revealed text. He brings his thinking patterns, his culture, his sense of history, and his categories to the writing process. Why would God allow this? Because he wants to communicate with the people in the biblical author’s audience. The author and audience of Genesis 1 could not possibly have understood a scientific explanation of creation (as we understand it today). They did not understand the method and mathematics of science – nor did they have the instrumentation necessary to discover scientific data. According to Pope Pius XII, God was really not concerned with giving a proper scientific account of creation when he inspired the biblical author – He was concerned only to give – through the author’s and audience’s own categories and culture – sacred truths necessary for salvation. This is a long held belief within the Catholic Church which was summed up by St. Thomas Aquinas when he said, “Whatever is received is received according to the manner of the receiver.” Thus, if God wants to communicate his truth to a 6th Century BC Israelite audience, he will have to use the categories and mindset of a 6th Century BC Israelite audience – and what better way to do it than to “work with” a 6th Century BC Israelite author. By doing this, he communicates effectively with past audiences, and does not impede communication with future audiences, for those audiences would be able to clearly understand the categories and mindsets of a less sophisticated, non-scientific time and culture.
Today we can understand the salvific truths in the Genesis narrative (see below) as easily as the biblical author’s audience in 500 BC. If we do not confuse the salvific intention and content of God’s revelation with the method and content of the natural sciences, there will be no contradiction between the biblical and scientific accounts of creation. Each account has its own purpose with its own method and its own content – conflating them is a misunderstanding of God’s intention in revealing himself to us through the Bible.
It is important to be aware that the Catholic Church was integral to the development of science throughout the centuries. Professor Stephen Barr – supersymmetry physicist
103
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + at the University of Delaware has written extensively on priests who were involved in the development of science. Some of the highlights are: 47 a. Nicholas Copernicus, a Catholic cleric, developed the heliocentric (sun- centered) model of the solar system. b. Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk and abbot, is acknowledged to be the founder of modern genetics. c. Nicolas Steno, a Danish Catholic bishop, is acknowledged to be one of the founders of modern stratigraphy and geology. d. Fr. Georges Lemaître is acknowledged to be the founder of contemporary cosmology – after discovering the Big Bang Theory in 1927 – a revolutionary, rigorously established comprehensive theory of universal origin.
Some have contended that the Catholic Church manifested an “anti-scientific attitude” during the controversy with Galileo, but the controversy was not about the veracity of scientific method or its seeming heliocentric conclusion. The Jesuits of the Roman College helped Galileo to confirm mathematically his version of the heliocentric theory, and considered him to be an esteemed colleague and friend. The relationship broke down only when Galileo disobeyed the Pope about announcing the heliocentric universe as fact (before adequate astronomical observations could be made to confirm the theory through a technique called “stellar parallax”).48 He exacerbated the strained relationship when he called the Pope and the Jesuits “fools” because of their reservation. The Catholic Church has never been QR37 “anti-science,” but rather creatively instrumental in its development, making science an integral part of its intellectual tradition. (For more A information, see Fr. Spitzer’s response to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s TV Cosmosresponse series, “Cosmos” in QR37.) to http:// Tyson’s magisqr.com/037 Section 2. The Genesis Narrative:
What are the “sacred truths necessary for salvation” conveyed in the Genesis 1 narrative. In order to answer this question, we will first want to understand the problem faced by the inspired biblical author in the 6th Century BC. At that time, several surrounding countries – Babylon, Assyria, Egypt – among others wrote myths of creation that presented themselves as “rival explanations” to the revelation of Yahweh to Israel. The most well-known of these myths was the Gilgamesh Epic (probably dating
Stephen M. Barr 2003 Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (South Bend, IND: University of Notre Dame 47Press) pp 9 -10. The stellar parallax technique is essential to confirming the earth’s movement around the sun, but astronomical48 observations of distant stars were not accurate enough to confirm the earth’s movement relative to the sun until over 200 years after Galileo – in 1839 by Friedrich Bessel. The Pope and the Jesuits were justified in asking Galileo not to claim his theory as fact until this critical astronomical observation had been made. Unfortunately, he chose not to do so, and the controversy (and breakdown of a long standing collegial relationship) began. Unfortunately, distortions of the story abound.
See Wallace 1984 and DeMarco 1986 pp 23-51 and 53-59.
104 FNTC – The Bible, Evolution and Aliens from 2100 BC and originating in the Kingdom of Ur). This myth – and others like it, diverged from God’s revelation to Israel in four major ways:
1. The rival myths presented many gods, while Israel believed in one God. 2. Rival myths spoke of nature gods (such as a moon god, an ocean god, etc.), while Israel believed that the one God created everything else. Hence, all natural objects were viewed by Israel as creations of God – not as gods. 3. Rival myths presented human beings as mere “playthings” and even “cannon fodder” for the gods, while Israel believed God created human beings in his own image and likeness – giving human beings an ultimate and transcendent dignity. 4. Rival myths believed that matter was fundamentally evil while Israel held that matter – since it was a creation of God – was fundamentally good (“And God saw that it was good”).
So, are these four revelations necessary for salvation today? Absolutely – as necessary today as in the 6th Century BC. All of them are very fundamental – without them we would still be immersed in polytheism and nature worship and we would have no sense of our true ultimate dignity or even the blessedness of creation. Can we understand these truths as well as a 6th Century BC Israelite audience? Of course – and now we see them in an even greater context of world history and culture. The truths of salvation in the Bible still stand firm guiding our minds and hearts to the God of Jesus Christ.
Well, what about the implication that the world was created in six days? First, we should not consider the duration of creation to be a truth of salvation. Secondly, we cannot take the term “day” literally, because it is used not to indicate a quantity of solar time (there was no sun on the first day…), but rather to indicate distinct stages within God’s creative process. What about the implication that the world is only 5,000 years old (if you add up all the generations in the Bible)? Again this is not a truth necessary for salvation, and the generations of Israel are certainly not meant to be an indication of the age of the universe. So these images do not contradict the scientific account that God created the universe 13.8 billion years ago (plus or minus 100,000 million years), that the earth and sun are 4.5 billion years old, and that a physical evolutionary process took place over 9.3 billion years to give rise to our very special planet, Earth.
Are there any points of intersection between the biblical account and the scientific account of creation? As a matter of fact, there are, but these cannot be considered the main motives of God’s inspiration of the Bible – which is to convey truths of salvation. One huge coincidence is the identification of light (energy) as the first moment of creation (the Big Bang must have been a spectacular site); another is the identification of darkness and an abyss prior to the moment of the creation of energy (how dark is “nothing”?); still another is the idea that creation happened in stages over time; and another is the idea that life was created in stages over time -- with human life being the highest life form (last to develop) – having the image and likeness of God – as the culmination of the creation process.
105
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + As long as we let the Bible be salvific and let science be descriptive of the physical universe, we need not worry about contradictions, but if we force the biblical author to be a scientist, or force scientists to give truths of salvation, we will find ourselves in a world of confusion. Pope Pius XII has cleared the air, and we can allow both pursuits to enjoy their distinct discoveries and revelations.
Section 3. Why Do We Need Revelation?
If experience and reason can reveal the high probability of a transcendent intelligent Creator and the existence of a transphysical soul, then why do we need Revelation (the Bible) anyway? Aren’t experiences and reason enough? Let’s review for a moment some of the transcendental areas that are accessible to experience and reason:
1. The existence of a Transcendent Creator -- from the implications of a beginning of physical reality (from the B-V-G Proof and entropy), and from the metaphysical proof of a unique unrestricted absolutely simple uncaused reality. 2. This Transcendent Creator has enough power to create the universe as a whole- - from the same source as “1.” above. 3. This Transcendent Creator is intelligent -- from anthropic coincidences at the Big Bang and from the metaphysical proof of God. 4. We have a transcendent soul – from the veridical evidence of near death experiences and from the five transcendental desires. 5. God is present to our consciousness (transcendent soul – from the five transcendental desires).
So what are the questions science and philosophy cannot answer? They would include:
a. Is God unconditionally loving? b. Does God redeem suffering? c. Does God answer prayers? d. Does God guide us in our everyday lives? QR 26 The http://magisqr.com/026 e. Can God make good come out of evil? Bible and f. What is the path to salvation (communion with God in the nextScience life)? g. Is it possible to stray from the path to salvation?
Why can’t science and philosophy answer these questions? Because it requires an understanding of the heart of God. Though we can get some indication of God’s heart from the five transcendental desires, we cannot get enough insight to answer the above questions -- and many others. For example, Aristotle in the Classical Period and deists in the modern period all held to rational proofs of a unique transcendent creator, but they thought this god was fundamentally disinterested in and even bored by human beings. Einstein held this belief as well. Since they restricted themselves to the domain of reason, they did not believe in a God who was compassionate, and certainly did not believe that God would want to be with us – face to face – as Emmanuel (“God with us”). So what recourse do we have to discover whether God is disinterested in us or loves us unconditionally? God himself will have to reveal this to us – and so we have to seek revelation as well as reason – and put our faith in that revelation when we have found it.
106 FNTC – The Bible, Evolution and Aliens
Section 4. Evolution and the Bible – Is There a Conflict? (44:43)
Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the development of species using evidence from genetics, genetic similarities among species, fossil evidence, and geographic distribution and similarity among species. While it may not contain a complete explanation of the development of different species, it is considered by most scientists to explain biological (physical-organic) development within and among biological species.
At first glance there appears to be a conflict between the Bible and evolutionary theory. The Bible suggests that human beings are a special creation of God independent of other biological species (such as chimpanzees, pre-homo-sapiens – such as homo- habilis, homo erectus, and Neanderthal). However, the theory of evolution suggests that human beings did come from an evolutionary progression. Can the two be reconciled? First, we must keep in mind that the Bible is not doing science. The Bible is making the theological point in Genesis that human beings were created as distinct from the animals and “made in the image and likeness of God.” Can these two theological truths be consistent with the truth of evolution? Yes – so long as we hold that human beings are not only biological organisms (subject to an evolutionary process), but have a unique transphysical soul individually created by God. This was the teaching of Pope Pius XII in another later encyclical entitled Humani Generis (1950) See QR38 for more information. The encyclical held that Catholics are free to believe, or not believe, in evolution to their QR38 chosen degree so long as they do not deny the creation by God of a Humani http://magisqr.com/038 unique transphysical soul in every human being. Evidently, a Generis transphysical soul is not physical (biological), and so it is not susceptible to an evolutionary process. Furthermore, the soul cannot be reduced to any physical or biological structure or process. Thus, so long as Catholics hold that human beings are transcendental and have a transphysical soul that did not evolve from chimpanzees or pre-homo-sapiens, they are faithful to Church teaching. Can Catholics believe that the physical-biological part of human beings evolved from other species? Yes. Can they believe that even the cerebral cortex came from an evolutionary process – from homo-erectus to Neanderthal to homo-sapien? Yes. It should be mentioned that the presence of the soul in human beings probably affected the development of the cerebral cortex in the fashion it developed. As we saw earlier, there is considerable evidence for a transphysical49 soul from the medical studies of near death QR 7 2 Evolution experiences (Episode Three, Chapter 5) and from our five and the Bible transcendental desires (Episode Four, Chapter 2). http://magisqr.com/027 50 See the holomorphic theory developed by Michael Polanyi as interpreted by Robert Spitzer 2015 The Soul’s49 Upward Yearning: Clue s to Our Transcendent Nature from Experience and Reason (San Francisco: Ignatius) Chapter 6. We did not present all the evidence for a transphysical soul in this series. If you are interested in more on50 this topic, see Robert Spitzer 2015 The Soul’s Upward Yearning: Clues to our Transcendent Nature from Experience and Reason which describes three other indications of a soul – from Kurt Gödel’s Proof of trans-algorithmic mathematical intelligence in human beings, the work of Sir John Eccles on the transphysical nature of human intelligence, and the work of David Chalmers on the hard problem of human self-consciousness.
107
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
Pope John Paul II declared that evolution is more than just a hypothesis, and reiterated in his letter to the Papal Academy of Sciences (see QR34 for compete address) that Catholics have the freedom to believe QR34 in the theory of evolution within the condition stated by Pope Pius XII (about having a transphysical soul). He stated in Section JPII 4 of that document the following: Address on http://magisqr.com/034Evolution Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
On this issue – as well as all other issues of science and faith – Catholics should always seek the truth, for there can be no contradiction between reason and faith. As St. Thomas Aquinas implied -- how can there be a contradiction? Faith and reason come from the same source – the all-knowing God. We conclude again with the words of Pope John Paul II in his letter to the Papal Academy of Sciences:
In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the re-foundation of the Academy, it gives me pleasure to recall the intentions of my predecessor, Pius XI, who wished to bring together around him a chosen group of scholars who could, working with complete freedom, inform the Holy See about the developments in scientific research and thus provide aid for reflections. To those whom he enjoyed calling the Scientific Senate of the Church, he asked simply this: that they serve the truth. That is the same invitation which I renew today, with the certainty that we can all draw profit from "the fruitfulness of frank dialogue between the Church and science." (Section 1).
Doodle Zone ê
108 FNTC – The Bible, Evolution and Aliens
The Bible and Evolution
Catholics may believe in evolution (as scientifically verified) so long as they do not deny the existence of a transphysical soul (Pope Pius XII – Encyclical letter Humani Generis – 1950)
Aliens
- There are 1022 stars in 1011 galaxies in our universe. Many of these stars have planets that might accommodate a life form. - Catholics can remain open to the possibility of other life forms in our universe. - If aliens are intelligent life forms (similar to human beings with creativity and an awareness of the five transcendental desires) we would have to assume that they have a “soul” (capable of surviving bodily death). Since souls are transphysical, God would have to have created them outside of the physical process. - If intelligent aliens are encountered, then catechize and baptize them. - Christ’s redemptive act is sufficient for the entire universe. It does not have to be repeated on every planet any more than it would have to be repeated in every country in the world (Israel was sufficient).
Section 6. Aliens?
Given that there are 1022 (a billion trillion) stars situated within 1011 (a hundred billion) galaxies in our universe (which is fully anthropic -- designed for life – since the Big Bang), and that recent discoveries of planetary systems suggest that there may be at least a hundred billion planetary systems accommodating rocky planets (very conservatively), it seems likely that there could be life on other planets in the universe. Many conditions would have to be fulfilled in order for a particular planet to accommodate life, but nevertheless, given the number of rocky planets, there could also be planets which meet all of these conditions.
It is one thing to say that there may be life on other planets – such as bacterial life, plant life, and even simple animalic life forms – such as insects or earthworms, but it is quite another to say that creative, self-reflective, rational, and transcendentally oriented life exists. The reason for this is that these higher functions of thinking and reflectivity may not be explicable in terms of physical-biological systems and processes alone. Remember what we said above about the five transcendental desires – it does not seem that our awareness of perfect truth, love, justice (goodness), and beauty and being “home” could have come from either the physical world around us or from our physical brain. There is something about these desires that goes beyond physics and the physical world. As Sir Arthur Eddington said:
We all know that there are regions of the human spirit untrammeled by the world of physics. In the mystic sense of the creation around us, in the expression of art, in a yearning towards God, the soul grows upward and finds the fulfillment of something implanted in its nature… 109
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
The transcendental desires are not the only evidence of our transphysical soul, there is also our self-consciousness, our trans-algorithmic mathematical thinking, and our ability to form conceptual ideas (that pass the Chomsky Linguistic Test) – all of which imply transphysical powers within us. This transphysical nature is confirmed by the evidence of a transphysical soul capable of surviving bodily death (evident in near death experiences).
So here is the question – what are the odds that there are alien beings like ourselves with these transphysical powers? As you can imagine, it is far, far, far less likely than discovering rocky planets, bacteria, plants, and earthworms – far, far, far less likely than discovering mammals with developed brains. The development of the human cerebral cortex is so complex and refined that the odds of it occurring by pure chance in the relatively young age of our universe (13.8 billion years old), is highly, highly unlikely. Even non-religious philosophers of mind, such as Thomas Nagel, do not believe that this could occur through a strict neo-Darwinian evolutionary process alone – because there is simply not enough time for it to occur.51
Even if we ignore this gigantic problem, does that mean that a being like ourselves can develop within the universe through physical processes (and their evolution) alone? We believe that this is not possible, because it would require that the aliens in question have transphysical powers to explain self-consciousness (Sir John Eccles), the five transcendental desires (Lonergan, Rahner, Coreth), and trans-algorithmic mathematical awareness (Gödel). Moreover, if such beings also experienced a transphysical soul after clinical death (as we do), there would be little doubt that they could not be reduced to physical processes (and their evolution) alone. They would – like us – have to have a transphysical soul, and the only known origin of such a soul would be a transphysical reality – like God.
Thus, if we were to encounter aliens like ourselves with the above transcendental powers, we would have to conclude that they were given a transphysical soul by God independently of any physical process in the universe. We would have to further conclude that the development of their refined, complex cerebral cortex occurred because of the presence of that soul in them. Furthermore, if they desire perfect and unconditional truth, love, justice (goodness), and beauty and being (home) as we do, then we would have to conclude that their ultimate fulfillment could only come from a God who is perfect truth, love, justice (goodness), and beauty and being (home) – in which case, we would have to assume that the path to that fulfillment could come from the revelation and grace of Jesus Christ (who proclaimed God to be perfect love, and defined that love through the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son).
What does that mean? If we discover an alien being like ourselves on another planet (or if they discovered us on this planet), we should catechize them and baptize them, because they were created by God for the same fulfillment we were – a fulfillment that can and does come from the Father of Jesus Christ.
51 See Thomas Nagel 2012 Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (New York: Oxford University Press). 110 FNTC – The Bible, Evolution and Aliens
This gives rise to one last set of questions – assuming that these alien transphysical beings would also have committed original sin (because they too would have been self- conscious and would have “tried to make themselves gods”), would the redeeming act of Jesus Christ (Incarnation, passion, and resurrection in Israel) also apply to them? Absolutely -- Jesus’ Incarnation in Nazareth and his crucifixion and resurrection in Jerusalem (on this planet) would be completely sufficient to redeem every transphysical being throughout the universe – because his salvific action is an act of unconditional love – which, when performed by God is an act of unrestricted or infinite love – and that is enough to redeem the totality of finite transphysical beings.
Therefore, we must have the same attitude toward aliens as the early missionaries had toward bringing the Gospel from Israel to the Roman Empire – and then to India – and then to China, Asia, and then the New World. It really does not matter where the Son of God entered into the condition of “unredeemed” transphysical intelligent beings – “human or otherwise” -- His infinite act of love at that specific place and time52 is sufficient to redeem not only our world, but the universe – and even beyond – for all time. In view of this, if we find alien beings who are like us in creativity, intelligence, transcendental desire, and transphysical soul, it is incumbent upon us to tell them of the infinite love of God brought to us in concrete space and time by Jesus Christ – for those beings will be yearning for that love as much as we do.
Chapter Review: There is no conflict between the Bible and science or the Bible and evolution because the Bible teaches sacred truths necessary for salvation while science gives a naturalistic description and explanation of the physical universe. They have two distinct purposes, with two distinct methods, and two distinct bodies of content.
We made a distinction between the “dictation theory of inspiration” (which leads to biblical literalism) and the “partnership theory of inspiration” which allows God to work through the biblical author to communicate with the mindset, categories, and cultural dispositions of the audiences at these earlier times (e.g. 500 BC). Catholics hold to this “partnership theory of inspiration,” and so do not need to make the biblical author give a scientific account of creation. Hence, the biblical account and the scientific account of creation can be perfectly compatible within their own domains.
We also saw that Catholics have a great deal of latitude with which to understand and interpret evolutionary theory. As both Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II have declared – Catholics have the right to believe in evolution to any reasonable degree, so long as it does not lead to the denial of a unique transphysical soul created by God in
52 Please note that Jesus’ infinite act of love also redeems “people of good will and conscience” before his Incarnation. This is implied in Jesus’ dying words on the cross – which represent the whole of Psalm 22: “All the rich of the earth will feast and worship; all who go down to the dust will kneel before him- those who cannot keep themselves alive. Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it! 111
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + every human being. We also saw that there is good reason to believe in such a transphysical soul from the vantage point of contemporary philosophy and science – particularly from the studies of near death experiences and the implications of our five transcendental desires (as well as other reasons not discussed above). Thus, once again, reason and revelation emerge as compatible and complementary. Conflict only results from a misunderstanding of the intention of God inspiring the biblical authors.
Finally, we discussed the possibility of alien life, and concluded that at least simple alien life – or perhaps even animalic alien life – is within the realm of possibility in our universe. However, the possible existence of intelligent, transcendental, transphysical life forms like ourselves seems quite remote indeed, if we exclude the action of God and limit ourselves to physical-biological explanation alone. We had two reasons for holding this:
1. A purely physical-biological evolutionary explanation of something as refined and complex as the human cerebral cortex is simply too improbable within the time limits of our universe’s age (13.8 billion years), and 2. If aliens displayed human creativity, rationality, self-consciousness, transcendental desires, and a capacity to survive bodily death – as we do – we would have to conclude that they have a transphysical soul created by God.
If we discovered alien beings with such a transphysical soul, we concluded that their desires for perfect truth, love, justice (goodness), and beauty would be fulfilled by a God who is perfect truth, love, justice (goodness), and beauty – that is, the God proclaimed by Jesus Christ who loves us unconditionally and infinitely – so much that he wants to be with us (Emmanuel) as we are – face to face – peer to peer – in a perfect act of empathy and compassion. If that is the case, then we have the responsibility to evangelize, catechize, and baptize them into the community of Jesus Christ.
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Four, Chapter 4:
1. What are your thoughts about the compatibility between the Bible and science?
2. What is the purpose of the Bible?
3. How and why did God inspire the biblical writers?
4. How is the God of the Bible different from the pagan gods?
5. Does the theory of evolution conflict with the Bible?
6. Explain the limits of Catholics’ acceptance of evolution.
7. Is alien life possible in our universe?
8. Explain the difficulties in holding that creative, intelligent, transcendental alien life developed solely through a physical biological evolutionary process.
112 FNTC – The Bible, Evolution and Aliens
9. If aliens do exist, do we have an obligation to teach them about God and salvation?
Notes:
113
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
From Nothing to Cosmos: THE WORKBOOK +
Episode Four, Chapter 5
Series Review (57:20 ~ 1:02:50)
In this chapter, we will take a look over our shoulder at the 15 chapters we have covered. It has been a long and arduous journey but we have gained so much. Let’s take a look at what we have discovered.
114 FNTC – The Bible, Evolution and Aliens
Episode Four, Chapter 5 – Series Review (57:20 – 1:02:50)
Introduction (57:20 ~ 1:02:50): This chapter is a brief recapitulation of the previous fifteen chapters. Before you watch the video, take a deep breath and relax. Enjoy the highlights of - From Nothing to Cosmos. One last question to ponder:
What is the evidence presented in this series for God and our transphysical soul?
We learned in Episode One that science is limited to observation – and observation, in turn, is limited to the event horizon within our universe. Therefore, science cannot disprove God, because God is beyond the universe. How can you use evidence from within the universe to disprove something beyond it? You cannot. Furthermore, we showed that science is an inductive discipline that must always remain open to new discoveries, meaning that science can never know everything about the physical universe sufficient to know that it does not need a Creator. These claims are beyond scientific methodology.
Nevertheless, science can give evidence for the existence of God by showing the intrinsic limits of the universe – which are within its observational purview. Thus, if science can find sufficient evidence to establish a limit to past time (a beginning) of our universe – and even a multiverse, a string universe, and a bouncing universe -- it can come close not only to showing a beginning of physical reality, but also imply a Transcendent Creator.
We looked at evidence from the Borde-Vilenkin Proof of 1993, and then concentrated on the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof of 2003, and acknowledged the probative evidence for a beginning – not only of our universe, but of multiverses, string universes, and bouncing universes. We asked whether there was a physically realistic exception to the one condition of the B-V-G Proof (an average Hubble expansion greater than zero), and acknowledged the possibility of an eternally static universe. However, we showed that this hypothesis was intrinsically contradictory (both perfectly stable and unstable), and also inconsistent with contemporary quantum theory (Vilenkin and Mithani). This led us to the probability of a beginning of physical reality.
We then considered the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), and acknowledged that its universal applicability – to all physical systems – implies a beginning not only of our universe, but any physical universe or multiverse. This gave us a second data set (along with space-time geometry proofs) pointing to the beginning of our universe as well as multiverses, bouncing universes, and physical reality itself.
The probability of a beginning of physical reality implied the probability of a Transcendent Creator, because if there was a beginning of physical reality, then prior to that beginning, physical reality would have been nothing. Now if physical reality had been nothing, then the only thing that it could do was nothing – in which case it could not have moved itself from nothing to something – when it was nothing. This led to the inevitable conclusion that something beyond physical reality – a transcendent
115
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook + causative force – would have had to move it from nothing to something, and for this reason, we called it a “Transcendent Creator.”
We then turned to the question of whether this Transcendent Creator is intelligent. This led us to two kinds of anthropic coincidences occurring at the Big Bang (a barrier to past causation in our universe):
1. The exceedingly high improbability of low entropy (necessary for life forms) at the 123 Big Bang -- 1010 to one against (the Penrose number), and 2. The exceedingly high improbability of our universal constants having anthropic values at the Big Bang – which is as improbable as low entropy.
We concluded from this, that the anthropic conditions (necessary for life forms) that occurred at the Big Bang were completely beyond the domain of pure chance in a single try. This left us with only two possibilities – a multiverse (where we could get “new tries” again and again with the production of each new bubble universe) or a highly intelligent Creator. We resolved that the latter was more probable not only because every multiverse must have a beginning (according to the B-V-G Proof) and violates Ockham’s Razor, but most importantly, requires fine-tuning in its initial conditions. Thus, the multiverse seems only to have moved us back one step in explaining the origin of highly improbable fine-tuning – which means we are faced with the question of where the highly improbable fine-tuning of the multiverse came from. We concluded that this pointed to the probability of a highly intelligent Creator who is ultimately responsible for intentional and rational design within the physical universe. This conclusion complemented and corroborated the one we reached about a Creator of physical reality (from the need for a beginning of it). Our ultimate conclusion was that science indicates the probability of a highly intelligent Transcendent Creator.
This led us to the objection of Richard Dawkins who claims that since a designer must be more complex than what it designs, and more complexity is always more improbable, a designer must be more improbable than what it designs. We showed that the first premise of this argument was fallacious through a metaphysical proof of God proving in five steps that there had to be at least one uncaused cause which must be unrestricted, completely unique, and absolutely simple. We concluded from this – using Dawkins’ second premise -- that God would have to be the most probable reality of all.
Next, we turned our attention to the existence of a transphysical soul, and first explored the peer-reviewed studies of near death experiences that gave significant probative evidence for the following:
1. Patients reported leaving their bodies, and being in a transphysical form in which they were conscious and had the capacity to see, hear, remember, and recall. 2. During that experience, many reported verifiable data (perfectly accurately) that took place after clinical death (30 seconds after cardiac arrest when there is virtually no electrical activity in the brain). 3. 80% of blind people saw (most for the first time) after clinical death.
116 FNTC – The Fine Tuning of Initial Conditions and Universal Constants
4. Many went to a heavenly domain in which they encountered deceased relatives and friends, a tremendously loving and beautiful white light, and Jesus. During that time, many heard hitherto unknown facts from deceased relatives and friends that they were later able to verify after resuscitation.
We concluded from this that physiological explanations of near death experiences – such as hallucinations, pharmaceutically induced states of mind, oxygen deprivation, stimulation at the temporal lobe, etc. – were completely incapable of explaining what took place in an NDE (and patients’ – even blind patients’ ability to report it perfectly accurately). This substantiated the probability of our having a transphysical soul – and the possibility of encountering a divine loving presence after bodily death.
We then explored our transcendental desires – the desire for perfect truth, love, justice (goodness), beauty and being (home) – and asked how we would be able to recognize imperfection in these areas continuously – and seemingly endlessly. We reasoned that these abilities entail at least a tacit awareness of perfect truth, love, justice (goodness), beauty and being (home). We then asked what the source of this transcendental awareness might be and concluded that it must come from a source commensurate with the awareness – that is, from perfect truth, perfect love, perfect justice (goodness), perfect beauty and perfect being (home) itself. After recognizing that these characteristics entailed absolute simplicity – and that there could only be one absolutely simple reality – we concluded that the one absolutely simple reality (proved in the metaphysical proof of God) must also be perfect truth, love, justice (goodness), beauty and being (home). This led to our final conclusion that the one God was present to our consciousness imparting our awareness of these transcendental domains – allowing us to ask questions, create, and engage in empathy, moral reasoning, and aesthetics (e.g., art, music, literature, architecture, etc.).
By way of summary, we asked how science (the physical) relates to the metaphysical (the transcendent domain), and we set out eight basic propositions:
1. Science cannot disprove the existence of God, because it depends on evidence from within the universe – and this cannot be used to disprove a being beyond the universe. 2. Science cannot know whether it knows everything about the universe, because science can’t know what it does not know until it has discovered it. Therefore, science cannot prove that the universe does not need a Creator. 3. Since science can give probative evidence for a limit to time (a beginning) in our universe (as well as multiverses, bouncing universes, and string universes), it can also show the probability of a beginning not only of our universe, but of physical reality. 4. Science can also give probative evidence - on the basis of entropy - for a beginning of our universe as well as other physical systems (such as a multiverse and a bouncing universe).
117
From Nothing to Cosmos – The Workbook +
5. Scientific evidence does not conflict with logical-metaphysical evidence of God – indeed, the two methodologies complement and corroborate each other’s conclusions about an ultimate intelligent cause of physical reality. 6. Science can give evidence of fine-tuning of universal constants and conditions at the Big Bang (a barrier to causation), which implies a supernatural designing intelligence (since a multiverse is ultimately unable to explain its own fine-tuning). 7. Peer-reviewed, longitudinal, comprehensive studies of near death experiences imply strongly that human beings have a transphysical soul (which can think, see, hear, remember, and recall) after clinical death. 8. The metaphysical proof of God shows that a necessary uncaused cause must be unrestricted, unique, and absolutely simple. Since absolute simplicity has no prior conditions, it is perfectly self-sufficient and self-explanatory, and is therefore, the only adequate explanation (cause) of the rest of reality.
We conclude with the Fr. Spitzer’s final statement in the video series:
“It appears very likely that there is some kind of creative force outside of our space-time asymmetry, outside of physical reality itself, outside of every multiverse. This creative force is, therefore, a transcendent force, and that transcendent force would have to be outside of time itself, and would actually have to be uncaused and unconditioned -- making it absolutely simple. This absolutely simple, unrestricted power, this unrestricted existence through itself would have to be the source of our transcendental awareness of perfect and unconditional truth, love, justice (goodness), and beauty. This unrestricted, uncaused creator; this super-intelligent agency; this source of perfect and unconditional truth, love, justice (goodness), and beauty; this unconditionally loving entity created us into existence through its intelligence and love, and maintained us so that we could thrive with him for all eternity in that love.”
Questions for Review and Discussion, Episode Four Chapter 5:
1. What is the single most important thing you have learned from this series? 2. How have your thoughts and beliefs changed as a result of studying this series? 3. Have you thought about how you might use this new information? 4. Do you have any remaining questions about God, human souls, evolution, etc? If so, please consult the website and forum below.
Questions? QR 28 Please visit us at: www.magiscenter.com Magiswiki.org Remember the FREE FORUM (look inside front cover) Check out this Wiki as a resource > OR - - use the FREE Study Guide (under the “Free/Resources tab” on our website)
118 QR Library
Below you will see a sample from the QR Library found on the following pages. Please note the several ways you can gain access to this information. Magis hopes this addition enhances your experience with the Workbook +.
1. You will need a “smart device” such as a smart phone or smart tablet to make use of the QR codes (similar to barcodes).
2. Some smart devices come equipped to read barcodes. If yours does not have this capability, you may have to download an app (application) to read barcodes. There are many free apps available for both Android and Apple devices.
3. If you do not have a “smart device” but have access to a computer with internet access, you can use the URL codes shown in the information box adjacent to the QR code you desire to access. (it will probably work on your browser without the http:// - try it)
4. To use the QRs, simply open your app (if required on your device) and point it at the QR code you want to access. Be careful to verify you “shot” the code you wanted. It is very easy to pick up a nearby code by accident. Try #4 below and see if you can get it to work for you.
One last tip for you: We tried to give enough space between QR codes to minimize read errors but they can still happen. To insure you get the right read every time, consider cutting a hole, large enough for one QR code, in a sheet of paper. Use that to cover all of the nearby codes while accessing the one you want. Let us know if you like the QR features.
119
QR Library
QR# Workbook + QR Library
Biography - Edwin Powell Hubble 1 http://magisqr.com/001
Example of Universe’s Linear Expansion 2 Using a Rubber band http://magisqr.com/002
Biographies - Albert Einstein and Georges 3 Lemaître http://magisqr.com/003
FNTC - Complete Online Study Guide 4 http://magisqr.com/004
God is Perfect Love - From Fr. Spitzer's 5 new book, The Soul's Upward Yearning:… http://magisqr.com/005
Biographies - Doctors Arvind Borde, 6 Alexander Vilenkin & Alan Harvey Guth http://magisqr.com/006
Vilenkin on the beginning of our universe 7 http://magisqr.com/007
Simulation of our expanding universe 8 using a balloon http://magisqr.com/008
120
120 QR Library
QR# Workbook + QR Library
Biographies - Doctors Roger Penrose & 9 Richard Tolman http://magisqr.com/009
Example of Entropy using billiards 10 http://magisqr.com/010
Biography - Sir Fred Hoyle 11 http://magisqr.com/011
Occam's razor - Definition 12 http://magisqr.com/012
Odds against Low Entopy at the Big bang 13 using a GIANT sheet http://magisqr.com/013
Why a Creator must be absolutely simple - 14 A response to Richard Dawkins http://magisqr.com/014
Fine Tuning of the Universal Constants - 15 Video Explanation http://magisqr.com/015
Biographies - Dr. Arno Penzias with mention of Robert Wilson (both Nobel 16 Prize winners) http://magisqr.com/016
121
120 QR Library
QR# Workbook + QR Library
Transcendental awareness examples / 17 Love, Justice and Beauty http://magisqr.com/017
Fr. Spitzer discusses Happiness, Suffering and the Love of God 18 video from Napa Institute http://magisqr.com/018
Not in Use 19 http://magisqr.com/019
FATHER SPITZER BIOGRAPHY 20 http://magisqr.com/020 (NOT IN THE WORKBOOK)
Fine Tuningof Universal Constants 21 Example Usng Monkey http://magisqr.com/021
Near Death Experiences – Description 22 and Clinical Death http://magisqr.com/022
God Is Perfect Justice (Goodness) 23 http://magisqr.com/023
Proof of a soul from 24 Transcendental Desires http://magisqr.com/024
122
120 QR Library
QR# Workbook + QR Library
Response to Atheist 's claim that we 25 would be better off without religion http://magisqr.com/025
The Bible and Science 26 http://magisqr.com/026
Evolution and the bible 27 http://magisqr.com/027
Magis Wiki Site 28 http://magisqr.com/028
Occam’s Razor, Hawking Style 29 http://magisqr.com/029
Scientist’s Beliefs About God - Einstein, 30 Planck, Eddington, Heisenberg, and Göbel http://magisqr.com/030
Fr. Spitzer debates Stephen Hawking on 31 Larry King Live http://magisqr.com/031
From Episode 2, The 6 Step Proof of the 32 B-V-G Theorem http://magisqr.com/032
123
120 QR Library
Workbook + QR Library
33 http://magisqr.com/033
Pope (Saint) John Paul II on evolution 34 http://magisqr.com/034
Pope Pius XII Encyclical, Divino Afflante 35 Spiritu, The Bible and Science http://magisqr.com/035
Dr. Raymond Moody, 9 elements of Near 36 Death Experiences http://magisqr.com/036
The Catholic Church and Natural Science, A Response to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s 37 “Cosmos” http://magisqr.com/037
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical, Humani- Generis, What Catholics can believe about 38 evolution http://magisqr.com/038
39 X Not In Use
40 Not In Use X
124
120 QR Library
QR# Workbook + QR Library
72 X Not In Use
Why medical teams believe NDEs cannot 73 be explained by any natural cause http://magisqr.com/070
What is the evidence for God from NDEs 74 http://magisqr.com/074
Why certain reports of “Crossing Over” have 75 some verifiable data http://magisqr.com/075
Why a lowered death anxiety in children experiencing a NDE indicates cognitive 76 activity after brain death http://magisqr.com/076
Why medical teams find this kind of evidence convincing of a transcendent 77 nature http://magisqr.com/077
Veridical Evidence and its significance 78 http://magisqr.com/078
Comments from the Dr’s who performed 79 the NDE studies http://magisqr.com/079
125
120 QR Library
QR# Workbook + QR Library
Proof a Creator must be absolute 80 simplicity http://magisqr.com/080
The importance of “Nothing” 81 http://magisqr.com/081
What is a Universal Constant? 82 Examples of Universal Constants http://magisqr.com/082
Evidence of a Beginning from Entropy 83 http://magisqr.com/083
What is a space time geometry proof? 84 http://magisqr.com/084
What is a bouncing universe? 85 http://magisqr.com/085
What is a multiverse? 86 http://magisqr.com/086
Cosmic Egg - Quantum Unstable 87 http://magisqr.com/087
126
120 QR Library
QR# Workbook + QR Library
Evenly distributed background radiation 88 http://magisqr.com/088
Dark energy 89 http://magisqr.com/089
A Response to Counter Positions 90 http://magisqr.com/090
Dark Matter 91 http://magisqr.com/091
The four forces in our universe 92 http://magisqr.com/092
New scientific data from the 93 Planck spacecraft http://magisqr.com/093
Is space an empty vacuum? 94 http://magisqr.com/094
Lemaître’s proposal to Einstein 95 http://magisqr.com/095
127
120 QR Library
QR# Workbook + QR Library
Einstein’s most important 96 contribution to science http://magisqr.com/096
The importance of nothing re: Creator 97 http://magisqr.com/097
Can scientists explain everything? 98 http://magisqr.com/098
What method is used in science? 99 http://magisqr.com/099
100 Workbook + Answer Guide http://magisqr.com/100
101 Not In Use X
102 X Not In Use
103 Not In Use X
128
120
ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D.
Fr. Spitzer was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1952. He is a Catholic priest in the Jesuit Order. A past President of Gonzaga University (1988 – 2009) he is currently President of Magis Center and The Spitzer Center. Magis Center produces documentaries, books, high school curricula, adult education curricula and new media materials to show the close connection between faith and reason in contemporary astrophysics, philosophy, and historical study of the New Testament. The Spitzer Center produces facilitated curricula to strengthen culture, faith and spirit in Catholic, non-profit and for profit organizations.
Father has published 8 books with an additional 3 to be released this year. His book, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Eerdmans, 2010) won the Catholic Press Assoc. Award for the best book in Faith and Science. Other books include Ten Universal Principles, Healing the Culture, Spirit of Leadership, Five Pillars of the Spiritual Life, Finding True Happiness (Ignatius Press, 2015), Evidence For God From Contemporary Physics: Extending the Legacy of Msgr. Georges Lemaître (St. Augustine Press, 2015) His academic specialties are (1) Philosophy of Science, particularly space-time theory and transcendent implications of contemporary big bang cosmology, (2) metaphysics, particularly the theory of time and philosophy of God, and (3) organizational ethics and its relationship to personal and cultural transformation. He has also studied leadership, historical exegesis of the New Testament, the life issues, and philosophy of culture.
Educated at Catholic University of America (Ph.D. – Philosophy - Summa cum Laude), Weston School (Th.M. – Theology - Summa cum Laude), Gregorian University (Rome – M.Div – Theology - Summa cum Laude), St. Louis University (M.A. – Philosophy – Magna cum Laude), Gonzaga University (B.B.A. – Public Accounting and Finance – Magna cum Laude) Mike was born in Long Beach, CA in 1946. His Wife, Michael K. Noggle Patricia, is his best friend. Four children and 9 grandchildren will be his most important legacy.
His background is in manufacturing where he was President and CEO of a company in the plastics field serving global clients. He produced two books for the plastics industry, one for classifying injection molds and one for unifying quality standards.
He has taught: bible studies (for adults and teens) for over 30 years, RCIA, Pre-Cana and Confirmation classes. Mike is a Certified Catechist in the Diocese of Orange, CA