But before the release of NASA’s WMAP study of the early universe in 2003, even ‘newer’ scientific proofs of God were simply refinements of these ideas dating back centuries.
The challenge was here: Although these proofs were compelling, they were still inconclusive.
Why? Because the facts these devout scientists pointed out also had alternate explanations that did not require God’s existence or handiwork, explains Sanjay C. Patel – author of GOD IS REAL – The Stunning New Convergence of Science and Spirituality.
Some people mistakenly presented those scientific proofs of God as though they were slam-dunk without telling the other side of the story. You will find this muddle in many publications as well as on numerous websites.
In reality, those scientific proofs of God’s existence do not meet the gold standard of science – the same strict science that makes your touchscreen or computer work. That’s why the debate has continued for so long. Fortunately, this problem is now resolved.
The same difficulty arose with the assertion of ‘near-death experiences’ (NDEs). Some people claimed to have them while their brains were dead.
In all fairness they are unable to discount the possibility that their spiritual experience occurred while their brains were still shutting down or while their brains were coming back online after some types of brain death and coma. Nobody – not the patient nor the skeptic – can know for sure exactly when the NDE was occurring.
All These Challenges Are Now A Thing of the Past
Today, the emergence of striking new correspondences between ancient spirituality and modern science finally meet the gold standard of scientific acceptance and prove God’s existence beyond doubt. Belief in God or heaven is not a matter of blind faith.
Below is a summary of the traditional scientific proofs of God, fair and square, with examples that show their strengths and weaknesses.
THE TRADITIONAL SCIENTIFIC PROOFS OF GOD
Does God exist? If not, how was the universe created?
About 80 years ago, scientists believed our universe was eternal. It had always existed. It did not have a ‘creation moment.’ However, this belief was turned on its head in the 1940s. It was discovered that the universe is expanding and must have begun from a small point. This was the now well-known ‘Big Bang’ event 13.7 billion years ago. The faithful argue that since the universe had a creation moment it must have had a creator. It is indeed a compelling scientific proof of God.
But this line of reasoning raises a question. Though the creation of the universe must have had a cause, possibly God, you are now left with the question: ‘Who created God?’ Another even greater God? … who in turn was created by an even greater God, who was created by the billion in another Super Universe by a super God, like human beings have been created by the billion on Earth? And was this super God created by a natural event? So you can see how this line of reasoning based on creation-creator has no end. It goes on forever without conclusion. It’s like the chicken or egg enigma. It ends only where you prefer it to end.
Is God Real? If not, was the creation of our universe a natural event?
Creation of the universe ex nihilo, that is, from absolutely nothing is a miracle. It requires the existence of God. This would indeed be scientific proof of God, agrees the opposite camp, if the universe really was created out of absolutely nothing.
But science does not claim this at all. It’s a misstating of the facts. Science states that the universe appeared from a ‘singularity.’ This is an object as small as an atom, extremely dense, and extremely hot. Though this singularity is very small, it cannot be described as ‘absolutely nothing.’ In fact, it was absolutely everything – the entire universe packed into a tiny seed. Science says the universe was created from this tiny seed, not ex nihilo. So this scientific proof of God is open-ended, too.
Is there a God? If not, why is our universe intricately designed?
This is known as the ‘Argument from Design.’ It states that there are things within our universe that are so intricately designed that they couldn’t have appeared by chance. They therefore require a designer or architect – God. There are numerous versions of this scientific proof of God. Older ones use the analogy of a clock or watch. It’s inconceivable that a watch might create itself by pure chance or through the forces of nature. It needs a watchmaker to come into existence.
Similarly, newer scientific proofs of God describe the complexity of the human brain or eye. They are so complicated they must have had a master designer. Even more so than the watch, they could not have appeared by chance. On the other hand, the opposite camp proposes a theory that says chance might create complexity when combined with ‘natural selection,’ in small increments over billions of years. The theory is called ‘Evolution.’ So these scientific proofs of God, too, are inconclusive.
Is there any other scientific proof of God?
Yes. The most powerful of all these traditional scientific proofs of God is the one that points to the ‘constants’ of nature. There are about 26 constants. They are dimensionless pure numbers that don’t seem to have any reason to have the exact values they possess.
Moreover, these exact values comprise a grand coincidence. The values of some constants are so finely tuned that if they differed by a minuscule fraction – just one part in a billion billion billion billion parts – the universe would not have formed the way it has, and human beings could not have appeared! It seems that the universe was deliberately fine-tuned to create human life. If any one of the constants, let alone all of them, was set at a slightly different value, you, nor I, would be here to read or write this article. We would not exist. This concept is known as the Anthropic Principle.
Scientists themselves have called our universe so improbable it’s “preposterous.” What’s the cause of such an improbable universe? What caused the constants of nature to be so perfectly tuned? The faithful claim that the cause must be God, the Grand Designer.
Is this 100 percent scientific proof of God? Is this a slam-dunk case? It’s very, very powerful, but not slam-dunk. It can be logically argued that the existence of a God capable of performing such fine-tuning on the universe would be at least as improbable as the finely tuned universe itself.
Moreover, our universe wouldn’t be statistically impossible if it was just one of infinite universes, a multiverse. Modern theories show this is certainly a possibility. If the multiverse theory is correct, amongst so many universes, a universe like ours would certainly exist – even with its highly improbable combination of perfectly tuned constants that create human life. Our universe would be very rare, yes. Impossible, no.
Part of the solution to the challenge requires we understand that the entire controversy is not so much about whether or not there exists a Supreme Power that created this universe. Something certainly did trigger off the Big Bang. The controversy is really about the nature of that power. Was it natural or supernatural? This is what the central argument is all about.
However complex scientific proofs of God’s existence seem to have become, in the end they lead back to the simple age-old chicken or egg dilemma. This is the reason why the debate over scientific proof of God has continued for centuries. The debate has continued because believers have been unable to conclusively supply scientific proof of God and skeptics have been unable to conclusively disprove God.
This fact is amply demonstrated in the “Science vs. God” debate between diehard atheist Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins reported in Time Magazine, Sunday Nov. 5, 2006:
TIME: Could the answer be God?
DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.
COLLINS: That’s God.
DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods.”
Surprised by this last admission? A freudian slip, maybe? In the end, Dawkins, one of the most vociferous atheists in the world, seems to adopt an agnostic stance claiming there may actually be a God or even billions of them! He does not and cannot flatly rule out the belief that God exists.
1. If God exists beyond space and time, it means God is not physical or material. He transcends our universe and there’s no way our mathematical theorems of the universe or our physical equipment will ever detect him.
US physicist Leonard Mlodinow agrees, “While science often casts doubt on spiritual beliefs and doctrines insofar as they make representations about the physical world, science does not – and cannot – conclude that God is an illusion.”1
2. Instead, if we try to replace God with mathematical laws of nature that exist within the universe, we now have to prove that the laws are realities. That means, a law can’t just be a rule. To affect the workings of the material universe the law itself must be material. Also, it must exist somewhere within the universe. The trouble is, scientists can’t find these laws anywhere. They are as invisible and undetectable as God!
US physicist Richard Feynman says, “In the case of physics we have double trouble. We come upon these mathematical interrelationships but they apply to the universe, so the problem of where they are is doubly confusing… . In the case of physics, because the laws are applied to the physical world and work, it gets harder to say where they are. … Those are philosophical questions that I don’t know how to answer.”2
After NASA’s WMAP results in 2003, however, there is now veritable scientific proof of God. It isn’t part of the unending chicken-egg / creation-creator saga. This beautiful new evidence finally throws out all doubts and it will change the way you look at ancient spirituality forever.
The new evidence has only one – conclusion: God Is Real.
THESE DISCOVERIES CHANGE EVERYTHING.
“REALLY LIKED IT … AUTHENTIC.” – Professor P.S. Joshi. Contributor to THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Fields: general relativity, cosmology, stellar evolution, naked singularities, black holes.
1. War of the Worldviews – science vs spirituality, p. 256 by Leonard Mlodinow and Deepak Chopra
2. Superstrings: A Theory of Everything? p. 208 by P. C. W. Davies, Julian Russell Brown
3. Who Really Discovered Deep-Sea Volcanoes? The Marine Scientist, The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology (IMAREST), London UK, No. 9, 4Q, December 2004, pp. 27-29 by Sanjay C. Patel
4. Deep-Sea Volcanoes and Their Associated Hydrothermal Vents, The Indian Journal of the History of Science, Historical Notes, Indian National Science Academy (INSA), New Delhi, December 2004, 39.4 (2004), pp. 511-518 by Sanjay C. Patel