New astrophysical discoveries leave little to no room for Atheism, expert says

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 72

Father Robert J. Spitzer

Denver, Colo., Sep 30, 2009 / 03:35 pm (CNA).- Contemporary astrophysics hold the scientific key to prove the existence of God, but unfortunately very few know the scientific facts, said Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, S.J, PhD, during a conference delivered on Sunday at the John Paul II Center for the New Evangelization in Denver, Colorado.

The Honolulu-born Jesuit is the past president of Gonzaga University and is also well-known philosopher and physicist who is involved in bringing science and theology together.

Fr. Spitzer is currently engaged in an ambitious project to explain the metaphysical consequences of the latest astrophysical discoveries, mainly, the existence of a Creator.

The conference in Denver was sponsored by John and Carol Saeman as well as the California Catholic philanthropist Timothy Busch.

“The arguments of Fr. Spitzer are addressed to every honest human being who is trying to reach to God through science,” said Mr. Busch, during the introduction.

“Atheism and pop culture have had a significant impact on Theism and it has to be confronted especially because Secularism and the negation of God are becoming pervasive,” began the 57 year-old priest.

“Theism, in fact, can be better explained by contemporary science and modern philosophy better than ever before, but particularly interesting is what is happening in the field of astrophysics ... to the point that I can't imagine why agnosticism and Atheism are still popular,” Fr. Spitzer said.

“That is why we need contemporary ‘translators’ that are capable of bringing today's science to regular people, and especially, to bring the astrophysical response to atheism,” he added.

Fr. Spitzer explained that, since science is based on a empirical model, it can change at any time. Nevertheless, as science develops and the so called “Big Bang” theory of the origin and existence of the universe becomes more refined, “it becomes less and less possible for other explanations (of the universe) to be scientifically viable.”

The theory, developed by the Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître, proposes that the Universe has expanded from a primordial dense initial condition at some time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day.

The model, according to Fr. Spitzer, has been revised, refined and scientifically established to a point that any other theory of the origin and existence of the universe has become harder and harder to defend.

Fr. Spitzer explained that, what we know from the most recent scientific evidence is that “the universe is not the universe of Mr. Newton anymore, it is not infinite, it is finite, it started at some point, and is in constant expansion.”

He then explained the complexity of the universe, saying it is based on “an incredibly delicate balance of 17 cosmological constants. If any of them would be off by one part of a tenth at a forty potency, we would be dead and the universe would not be what it is.”

“Every single Big Bang model shows the existence of what scientists call a ‘singularity,’ and the existence of each singularity demands the existence of an external ‘element’ to the universe,” Fr. Spitzer said.

The priest physicist then proceeded to explain the different, complex versions of the various Bing Bang theories.

He quoted Roger Penrose, the world-famous English mathematician and physicist, who corrected some of the theories of his friend and colleague Stephen Hawking to conclude that every Big Bang theory, including the one known as Quantum theory, confirms the existence of singularities. Therefore, said Spitzer, the need to find an explanation to the universe’s existence drives us to seek “a force that is previous and independent from the universe.”

Fr. Spitzer also quoted the 2003 experiments by three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, who were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

“The concept at this point is clear: nothing is nothing, and from nothing, nothing comes, since nothing is... nothing!” Fr. Spitzer said, to explain the fact that contemporary astrophysics demands “something with sufficient power to bring the universe into existence.”

“It sounds like a theological argument, but is really a scientific conclusion.

“There is no way to ignore the fact that it demands the existence of a singularity and therefore of a Creator outside space and time,” he added.

According to Fr. Spitzer, “this theory has become so scientifically solid, that 50% of astrophysicists are “coming out of the closet” an accepting a metaphysical conclusion: the need of a Creator.”

The Jesuit priest explained that this theory is not what is currently known as “Intelligent Design.”

“Intelligent Design is a biological theory, this is an anthropic universe theory, based on the question: Can our universe sustain forms of life no matter what, without any external energy?”

According to Fr. Spitzer, Professor Penrose “has provided a mathematical model in which the possibilities of a universe that would not be gobbled without the existence of a Creator are simply improvable, to a point of mathematical impossibility.”

“What can we conclude of this? First that the Creator is really smart... and second that it must be a loving one, because He could choose so many more violent and chaotic alternatives, that it really has to make you wonder.”

Fr. Spitzer explained to CNA that “all this information must be conveyed in a simple manner to our seminarians, our college and high school students, who are mostly ignorant of the powerful Theistic message of today’s astrophysics.”

The Jesuit physicist, with the help of some Catholic philanthropists, is working on a project to create a 90-minute curriculum, divided into three 30-minute segments, that will offer the astrophysics-based response to atheism. “It will be a high quality production that will involve 12 physicists, as well as dynamic and engaging graphics,” he explained.

“The idea,” he told CNA, “is to make not only DVDs that can be distributed to all Catholic high schools or Newman centers around the U.S., but to make it available for free via the Internet.”

Fr. Spitzer is working in another three more 90-minute curricula: “The historical evidence of Jesus,” “Suffering and the love of God” and “Contemporary philosophical responses to Atheism.”

Comments: 72

Subscriber comments:

Published by: Dalgerti Lelis Milanese
Limeira/SP/Brazil 11/05/2009 02:10 PM EST

Let’s explain this concept about ideas being as real as the material world: Jesus Christ also said to the Jewish leaders: My father said “You are gods”. So we can create things, that is, we can bring into existence things that didn’t exist. Is not all human being’s creation included in this context? So, ideas, dreams, become true. They are true when they are only ideas, before put into the real world. So, they are real as we stated above. Let’s talk about internet: A huge worldwide grid of computers, that is, a huge technological brain (we believers, may guess that it is what Apostle John was talking about when he mentioned the beast). Doesn’t it fit perfectly in the Theory of Cosmic Computer, which many scientists are mathematically exploring? The Universe seeing as a cosmic computer, that is, a huge brain! The Bible called us gods, in several occasions... Here I believe that we have presented several reasons for the unbelievers to turn back to the Holy Scriptures and explore it in their sincere search for the true. At least under their viewpoint that the Bible was created by the human being in his evolutionary journey on Earth.

Published by: Dalgerti Lelis Milanese
Limeira/SP/Brazil 10/28/2009 11:57 AM EST

..Can our reason commanded by our sinful nature enter God’s home? According to Jesus Christ, it is impossible! We need to be freed of this nature and get a new nature like His Holly Nature. Notice: Here we have a big problem which could be pointed out by the believers: In the previous comment I mixed God, our Creator, with the World, which is God’s Creation. But, I am here following a natural (evolutionary) approach. What I intend to show in all of my comments is: Atheists, who accept the evolutionism, must agree that religion and all subjective thoughts of human beings belong to the cultural evolution. So in this sense, they must think of God as having real existence, considering that ideas are as real as the material world.

Published by: Dalgerti Lelis Milanese
Limeira/SP/Brazil 10/22/2009 02:16 PM EST

.. knowledge of everything. In my opinion, that was what Apostle Paul was referring about when he addressed to the people of Athens about the unknown God. Here, when we mention Apostle Paul, we have an example of the modernity of the Bible and its teaching, considering that one can just replace the description of the world done by Paul by its latest scientific descriptions. The struggle of our reason against God, according to my interpretation, is the motive why God expelled us out of Heaven. What is the most precious good of God? Knowledge! Knowledge maybe God Himself. Knowledge is “materialized” through the Word of God, which is His Spirit. In this line of thought, we can see that Heaven and God’s paradise are not here in this world, but a place where only spirits dwell. Since Jesus Christ called us to come back to our Father’s home, and we know through Him that it can be only in spirit (Flesh will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven), it won’t be in this planet (at least as it is in the present time). Now, can science give us a better idea of what Heaven really is? If we think the Universe as a cosmic computer (see the theory), or a huge brain, operated by God, or it is God’s Brain which is God Himself, it is easy to understand how matter and energy interact as well our body and spirit. Now, one may guess: understanding God is salvation? Can our reason commanded by our sinful nature enter God’s home? According to Jesus Christ we must be freed of this nature.

Published by: Dalgerti Lelis Milanese
Limeira/SP/Brazil 10/20/2009 04:38 PM EST

Let’s continue struggling against God using our sword of reason, hoping that God may forgive us in the same way He forgave Jacob who fought against Him and was given the name of Israel. Life on Earth came from primordial syntheses of amino acids. So, from matter came living beings. Science doesn’t have a clear idea of what living beings really are. Surely there are many definitions of such organisms. One of those we can try is that living beings are organized chemical structures that have some functions as motion through the processing of energy and are able to reproduce themselves. Moreover, they behave according to certain logical system. As we state such definition we are introducing here the concept of logic. That logic that appears in nature has led many to guess that it is God’s. Others, that don’t believe in God, are more comfortable to saying that this logic, which organizes the structure of living beings (and also the structure of matter, and the entire universe), would be seeing as the conformity of our reason with the real world, accepted by many scholar people and according to empirical experiences (when they can be applied). Furthermore, believers and non-believers can state that logic is also conformity of our reason with nature that gives us certain satisfaction (through the liberation of endorphin by our brain). Anyway, that logic found in nature has led part of humanity to guess that it came from a mighty living being, which has the knowledge of everythig.

Published by: Alan Havlick
US 10/19/2009 01:22 AM EST

Very interesting.If this is meant to inform believers great but if its going after the others,as you can see by many of there coments its pointless.Trying to convince somone to believe is pointless.The Word says that"His sheep know His voice"If you are not one of His then all the arguments in the world wont make you his,there frame of reference does not allow the unbeliever to escape the box they are in,they could not understand God if they spent there entire lifes trying to do so.However I do not suffer from a closed mind as they do and can see an interesting series of ideas in your article,Well done.

Published by: Dalgerti Lelis Milanese
Limeira/SP/Brazil 10/17/2009 10:27 AM EST

...What is mythology indeed? If we are trying to explain God we must also explain the meaning of this word. I think that searching for God is searching for the understanding of the human being. The line of thought based on cause and effect, considering the physical concept of the universe, is just one of many approaches. For example, we have the philosophical approach conceived by Descartes: “That he existed because he thought”. In this line of thought who, nowadays, has a clear idea of our existence? So, how to search for God if, philosophically speaking, we don’t know even that we exist? That is madness! Someone says. Yes, we are at the edge of madness, just as many scientists and philosophers where in the past and are in the present time. How about a more comfortable aproach? Like this: “Come to me and your load will be light and my rule will be tender”, said Jesus.

Published by: Dalgerti Lelis Milanese
Limeira/SP/Brazil 10/14/2009 07:02 PM EST

And a prince went out of his palace to learn about human suffering. After many years of observation, suffering and meditation, finally he sat down on the ground, under a fig tree, and had a great vision: the true about life and the universe. God didn’t help him because he didn’t ask God for help. He reached the true and the paradise on his own. He had conquered the paradise and now he was taken out of the wheel of life. “And God told to the angel: Do not let them come back here for, once they have eaten the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, do not succeed that they may eat the Fruit of the Tree of Life and have Eternal Life.” Are those stories mythologies? Mythologies that have led the humanity since a long time ago. What is the argument of evolutionism on this topic? Does not the evolutionism produce mythology? If it does (and it does), mythology has an explainable and very scientific purpose. So is the Bible mythology? What is mythology indeed? If we are trying to explain God we must also explain the meaning of this word.

Published by: John Dietrich
Vancouver CANADA 10/13/2009 12:57 PM EST

Jesus said that 'unless we become as little kids', we won't get it. I have always felt the presence of God, or the effects thereof, since I can remember. The child we all carry within has no need of scientific proofs. I believe. Period. God and I have a deal: I believe in Him, and He takes care of me. I camp a lot in the Big Woods in Canada, and it's like a religious experience. Of course, this is not to put down them seeking to know whether science can lead them to God. I simply believe my Mother, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It feels so good to believe, and it boggles the mind not to.

Published by: Enrique Woll
Lima, PERU 10/12/2009 07:19 PM EST

In conclusion, it appears that the universe does not have need of a Creator, at least not an absolute one, or even of a God, much less The Christian God, and that lesser and undesirable forms of a God could exist in addition to the evil beings that so clearly do exist. Yet, in the context of our human limitations and frailty versus the enormous and increasing challenges we face to our individual and collective survival, our only hope of attaining and securing optimal and sustained physical and spiritual wellness, now or ever, would stem from the existence of The Christian God, The Supreme Being, Matchless, Almighty, and Pure, with all the wondrous powers implied. But unfortunately, His existence is not certain, and proving His existence does not seem feasible, and may never be achieved. However, should this matter at all? What value or merit could there be, after all, in believing in Him on the basis of absolute proof, or when no room is left for doubt? And thus I find that I must cling to my belief in Him, on the basis of Faith. Yes, I believe, by sheer Faith, that He is all that, and Infinitely more.

Published by: Enrique Woll
Lima, PERU 10/12/2009 07:17 PM EST

If on the other hand, God, The Supreme Being, Matchless, Almighty, and Pure, existed, but were not the Creator of All Things, the universe could only have come from an independent mass-energy concentrate of near-infinite density in time-unlimited Consented coexistence with Him, and Creation could only have occurred by spontaneous big bang, again, with His Consent, or at His Command or with His Consent, by the intervention of a lesser and obedient being, not necessarily of His Creation. And if God, The Matchless, and thus Supreme Being, existed, but were not Almighty, whether or not Pure, He could not have Created All Things, and possibly not even the universe, and His Consent to the Creation of the universe by a lesser being, whether or not He could have Created it, would not have been required by a Capable but insubordinate being. Finally, If God, The Matchless, and thus Supreme Being, existed, and were Almighty but not Pure, He would be the universal purveyor of perdition and destruction.

Published by: Enrique Woll
Lima, PERU 10/12/2009 07:16 PM EST

And fortunately for theologians and astrophysicists alike, this extended conception of God, The Supreme Being, does not appear to conflict with any of the current all-encompassing and Universal Systems Theories, such as those of Entropy, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Unified Fields, and does not preclude the existence of lesser, impure, or evil beings, material and otherwise; does not require a perfect or everlasting universe; and allows for the evolution of the living species, foreknown to Him, through intelligent design, or by the results of random environmental change, the survival of the fittest, and natural selection, and for the growing complexity of all material things and systems, and the possible energy death of the universe, and even an end to mass-energy and space-time.

Published by: Enrique Woll
Lima, PERU 10/12/2009 07:14 PM EST

To be sure, the minimal capacity an entity can have to qualify as God in any sufficient sense akin to the Christian conception of Him, He must satisfy three capacities. Firstly, God must be The Supreme Being, and for this, clearly, He must be Matchless. Secondly, He must be the Creator of All Things, which, clearly, requires Him to be Almighty, which in turn, allows Him to be Ubiquitous, Omniscient, Immaterial, Independent, Eternal, and Perfect. Thirdly, His deeds must be always Loving, which, clearly, requires Him to be Pure, and as such, Sinless. In sum, God must be Matchless, Almighty, and Pure. And about this extended criteria, there may be universal agreement. God, The Supreme Being, indeed may exist, and be, as professed by Christianity, a Three-Person Entity, consisting of The Matchless Father, and Jesus The Almighty Son, Creator of All Things, Savior, Christ, and The Holy Spirit, Purity, in a Ubiquitous and Perfect Holy Triumvirate, Eternal, without Beginning or End, Unconstrained by the time-space and mass-energy that define and constitute the universe, His Creation.

Published by: Enrique Woll
Lima, PERU 10/12/2009 07:12 PM EST

Nevertheless, a limited exposure to the seemingly complementary, and possibly convergent respective theories, should avail one sufficiently with a layman’s independence of thought, and objectivity: a clear and common sense. Therefore, it would seem to me that, as is done with any other entity under consideration, the proper basis for further discussion of whether God, The Supreme Being, exists, and further, that He is the Creator of All Things, and so the universe, from His own Self, it is necessary to propose a-priori what God is, in all candidness, and by enlightened analysis, by His Grace, of His capacities and His actions as we may perceive or infer them, hopefully conclude, unambiguously but not arbitrarily, that indeed He is That, or at least what He May Be, and May Not Be.

Published by: Dalgerti Lelis Milanese
Limeira/SP/Brazil 10/12/2009 03:10 PM EST

...believing comes from intuition and intuition comes from evolution in the same way as reason, which comes along with intuition, complementing each other (science and faith complement each other). I think that human science is God’s too. In spite of our sin and our madness, according to the Bible, are not the scriptures speaking to our human minds? We were gods condemned to eternal death, and our science was condenned too. But now, we are gods called to share God´s Kingdom through Jesus Christ, and also our science, which is God’s science. And the entire creation is eargerly waiting for God´s mercy.

Published by: psalm
Detroit/MI 10/11/2009 03:45 PM EST

"initial/ultimate causes of the material universe are among the non-empirical issues outside of research science." What do you think that means? Do you think that if something is not empiricly verifiable, it doesn't exist or can't be true? The Christian view of the origin of the universe is fully in line with good science, philosophy, and philosophical principles. Based on scientific data we have as well as sound philosophy, the Christian view on the origin of the universe is completely reasonable. The atheistic view....not so much. Modern science sure does point to a creator.

Published by: Frank M.
Bayport, NY, USA 10/09/2009 09:44 AM EST

Initial/ultimate causes of the material universe are among the non-empirical issues outside of research science. IT can be called God or Svengali or X. "The need for a creator" is not implied by any modern science. Fr. Spitzer's anthropomorphic conclusions are specious. HE is a Loving God we should Worship follows from singularities??

Published by: Dalgerti Lelis Milanese
Limeira/SP/Brazil 10/09/2009 08:26 AM EST

Speaking of period of time: we must not interpret the six days of creation as it is six days of our time reference. Since the time is relative, according to Einstein theory (which is, probably, a temporary theory), why not is God speaking about his own time (called Kairos). Evolutionism says that we came from the dust of the earth. So, that is what the Bible says too. One more important thing: was not the idea of God also a result of evolutionism? Even those that don’t believe in God must accept that believing in God or not is also ideas produced by the evolutionism (according to our reason). Are not these ideas useful for the surviving of the human being? According to the evolution theory those ideas are good for our surviving, because we know that we are led by our ideas, so ideas are part of our adaptation process. One more argument : Evolution leads the humanity to an increasing knowledge of the universe. Apostle Paul said that he was taken to the third heaven. The later theory of the universe also speaks of several dimensions and parallel universes. Jesus said that he will be at the highest heaven, waiting for us. Or God is at the end of our journey, or other beings in the universe, or we alone will be there for good or for bad. I believe that God is our final meeting. And believing comes from intuition and intuition comes also from evolution in the same way as reason, which comes along with intuition, complementing each other (science and faith complements each other).

Published by: seathanaich
right here 10/08/2009 01:42 PM EST

It's hardly surprising that someone whose religious beliefs are essentially wishful thinking comes to such a conclusion. By all means, promote science and knowledge. Education is the most effective tool in either moderating or killing religious belief.

Published by: Enemy of Satan
Indonesia 10/05/2009 09:27 PM EST

The presence of God is in fact the simplest to prove. Our rationality states that an effect always needs a cause. All things in our conception can either exist or don't exist, yet they exist. Law of causality states that when there's an effect, there must be a cause. Thus it can be said that there must be an existence that have existed, exists, and will forever exist. Or else, none can have even the possibility to exist at all. The one that exist in perpetuity is the one that we call God.

Published by: Robert Z. Cortes
Philippines 10/05/2009 12:04 AM EST

God bless, you, Fr. Spitzer! More power!

Published by: daryl
California 10/05/2009 12:00 AM EST

Add Dr Spitzer's name to the illustrious history of Jesuit Science. Jesuit astronomers in Galileo's time observed comets and correctly deduced their extraterrestrial nature. Galileo irascibly stuck to his dogma that they were atmospheric phenomena. Multiverse and membrane theories suffer from a common defect: they are complete speculation without a shred of evidence. Additionally, they fail the test of Occam's Razor. If we are loath to admit that our Universe appeared out of nothing, it is absurd to speculate that it is only a speck popping out of a far vaster mega-universe whose origins we can know even less about and cannot possibly observe. Ian's rude tone, illogic, and apparent state of knowledge seem reminiscent of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Let's pray Science according to the Little Red or the Little Green Book is not what's coming up next. Dr. Spitzer's point that all scientific theories of cosmology generate mathematical singularities, completely intractable expressions, is very interesting. The fundamental problem with expressions containing singularities is that it is impossible to determine if they are true or false. But is anyone going to deny that the world we experience, observe, and measure, is nonetheless miraculously real? Unlike Po-mo Literature Professors, let's not decide the Universe is not real because we can't tuck it into a formula or slogan.

Published by: daryl
california 10/04/2009 11:27 PM EST

If the present is NOT fully explainable by causes contained in the past, then one must admit non-natural causes. The overwhelming problem for atheists is the Big Bang is the Initial Moment. Whatever caused the Big Bang did not exist previously because there was no Previous. The Creative Impulse was ipso facto Supernatural. OR are we going to deny Logic and Reason to keep our Atheism? An atheist must refute three confirmatory observations to deny that the Universe began as a physical Singularity 13.8 billion years ago. One is the measurable temperature of the cosmological background radiation, the product of the adiabatic cooling of the Universe. A second is cosmochemical history. The oldest stars are pure Hydrogen and Helium. Newer stars have a more complex chemistry, containing the products of thermonuclear combustion from earlier generations of stars. The present chemistry implies not all that many generations of stars have existed. A third is the process towards an extreme distribution of infinitely dense black holes and empty space. Originally, the Universe was completely uniform within the limits of quantum uncertainty. There is nothing which can stop this, other than the End of the Universe. The present intermediate state agrees with a relatively recent origin. To deny Supernatural causation despite accumulated scientific observation requires more faith than belief in angels, plus a liberal helping of ignorance, incomprehension, or bigotry.

Published by: Thomas J
Buffalo, NY 10/04/2009 03:06 PM EST

1). Pure comedy of the un-godly, you educated prideful self is your downfall like Lucifer's ( Satan ) 2). A child he or she is created in the mother's womb NOT by he or she self. Mother and Father had to do something physically before that could incur, namely the father had the big bang himself physically and wa-la, he or she was conceived in the mother's womb. Then 9 months later another physical big bang occurred, namely he or she pop's out of the mother's womb. Thank God I am not your Mother, I would denounce you in front of your "peer's" for such dribble UN-sound non-sense that their is no Creator. 3). Therefore there is absolutely no doubt, no mistake, that there is a Creator of the universe. RE-READ what I wrote in #2. Unless it is too simple for you to UNDERSTAND simple English 4). It is a cross, a heavy cross to bear to be charitible ( you call to mind why the Spanish Inquisition became so popular several centuries ago after reading YOUR higher education dribble ) BUT, does anyone take you seriously in the academic world???? Next you'll be trying to convince us with scientific methods that the world is flat. 5) I am trying to be charitable, but NO one in their correct sound rational mind is going to take you serious with anything important, especially entrusting ones life.

Published by: Thomas J
Buffalo, NY 10/04/2009 02:27 PM EST

The Universe existence???? Undo the damage and harm caused by Satan and a third of the heavenly when they got thrown out of Heaven.

Published by: snaxalotl
melbourne 10/03/2009 12:01 PM EST

errrm, that headline should read "expert with a vested interest..."

Published by: Psalm
Detroit/MI 10/03/2009 11:57 AM EST

"it does not establish proof of an interventionist god and therefore remains irrelevant to questions of morality and the nature of being." You are attacking straw men here. The morality of God is a different argument, different discussion and different thread.

Published by: John
USA 10/03/2009 11:38 AM EST

People should be aware that the First Vatican Council teaches definitively that the human mind can, by the proper exercise of its powers of reason, come to know that God exists. Fideism is a heresy.

Published by: J.
USA 10/03/2009 11:35 AM EST

Some raise the question, "If God caused everything, because everything has a cause, then what caused God?" The question seems reasonable enough at a first look, but I think it fails radically to take account of the key points derived from the argument for the existence of God: 1. everything has a cause, yes, but God is not a "thing" in any sense of the word. We cannot "reify" Ipsum Esse Subsistens in this way. 2. It is not merely the case that God is not caused; more importantly, God is not -causable-. God, if really God, CANNOT be caused. Therefore, either God does not and cannot exist, or He does exist and cannot not exist, He must exist in se. Because the material universe, which is manifestly contingent, lacks these properties, the material universe is not God.

Published by: psalm
Detroit/MI 10/02/2009 11:17 PM EST

"As addressed by Dawkins et al., the idea of a singularity sparked by a Creator is not new, and raises the question of who created the Creator?" I was wondering how long it would take before people started quoting Dawkins. The question of "who created the creator"? is not new either. As a matter of fact, the current crop of "new atheists" have nothing new to offer as far as argumentation. There are current Christian apologists who argue the existence of God very well using contemporary science and philosophy. Dr William Lane Craig comes to mind. He made Christopher (God is Not Great)Hitchens look silly in their recent debate. Dr. Craig has refuted many of Dawkins arguments and has also issued a challenge to debate Dawkins. Dawkins won't debate Dr. Craig. Hmmm.

Published by: Cesar Fernandez-Stoll
Cambridge/Ontario/Canada 10/02/2009 09:23 PM EST

Very interesting article and by looking at the comments, there are many people out there that will always find very difficult to accept the truth. I can say that there is absolutely no room for speculation, God does exist and is our only living God, not just because of what we see but because of what we do not get to see and comprehend. He does not owe us anything, He gave us a world and give us dignity, individuality, identity and freedom and we think we still need to prove Him to be real. We have far too much evidence much closer to us in present time that constantly tell us about His existence, true His love and the hope that keep us going despite the denial of so many that just do not get how much they can be part of the constant miracle that life is, with God. Science is not a matter that collides with faith but a complement to it, because is knowledge for the purpose of serving God's creation. There is no wonder that the ones that find so difficult to find God, find as well so easy to establish in science so many wrong absolutes.

Published by: Jerome
Michigan 10/02/2009 09:21 PM EST

I think Linus has it right. WIthout reviewing a famous debate between Bonaventure and Aquinas, I think Aquinas had it right: creation and beginning of the universe are separate things. God is eternal and could have created an eternal universe, as the perfect and all-powerful first cause. Aquinas concludes it is therefore impossible philosophically and to prove the universe had a beginning, and altogether unnecessary, since that is known by faith. Can modern science succeed at this, if philosophy cannot? I doubt out it. With peace to my scientistic friends (and Fr. Spitzer as well), scientific discoveries, even the most basic scientific discoveries in physics and cosmology, tell us little about the origin of the universe until they are interpreted philosophically, in which case they need to be judged by philosophical criteria, not scientific. To be sure some say modern scientific cosmology is really a form of metaphysics disguised as science. Maybe so, but if so, it's bad metaphysics!

Published by: Tom R
Summerfield, NC, USA 10/02/2009 08:58 PM EST

When will all of these apologist take a deep breath and look outside the box they have been living in? I was "more Catholic than the Pope" for 60 of my 64 years and I expanded my view. Nothing that Fr. Spitzer said makes sense in light of modern science. Check it out.

Published by: Dalgerti Lelis Milanese
Limeira/SP/Brazil 10/02/2009 04:12 PM EST

“And God told to the angel: Do not let them come back here for once they have eaten the fruit of knowledge… ” But Jesus Christ meant: “You were supposed to know all those things, but you are not prepared for eating solid food yet. You are just like children that are supposed to drink only milk…” And now, through Jesus Christ, we are allowed to know everything of God’s marvelous plan of creation. (I have the above phrases written by heart) I think that both are true: creationism and evolutionism. God created the world just as it is. It is not a static world but it changes all the time. The human being changes too. Jesus Christ said: “You are not prepared for eating solid food yet. You are just like children that are supposed to drink only milk…” It means that we are changing, and growing in intelligence. It is evident that the Bible speaks of a changing world when it deals with the final times. It will not happen all at a sudden, but it will happen progressively. Why not the beginning of the world and the beginning of the human being which happened progressively? Speaking of the final times one thing science and religion agree: the world is coming to an end. Will it happens when the next meteor hits the earth or in the next million of years? Jesus Christ said: “The day and the hour no one knows, only God knows”. Speaking of period of time: we must not interpret the six days of creation as it is six days of our time reference. Since the time is relative, according to Einstein.

Published by: Pat
GrassValley,CA.USA 10/02/2009 01:00 PM EST

You lost my original comments... I guess Fr. Spitzer has been TOLD. I think what the good priest has done is beyond some kinds of thinking. God Himself could not stir some of the doubters...Looking forward to the DVD's/CD's being available for education and us. Praying for ya, Fr....

Published by: Michael Rudas
Detroit, Michigan 10/02/2009 10:58 AM EST

If an apologist has to reach this far for "proof" of a "Creator" then it's a pretty weak argument. After over 10,000 years of monotheistic religions and thousands of years of theology and theodicy, we should be able to talk about "knowledge" and "facts," not just "belief" and "faith"--to quote an old Wendy's commercial,"Where's the beef?" ~~ ScienceMikey

Published by: Arelius
Houston/TX/USA 10/02/2009 10:47 AM EST

"This is one of the most insane incoherent and inaccurate ramblings I have read in a long time, so thank you for that." Well said, as this accurately describes your ranting diatribe filled with ad hominem fallacies, straw men arguments and an animus toward religion and reason. First, the intriguing aspect of "infinite universes", and plasma universes is that they are still having to go outside our present one, in order to offer an explanation. Second, there is no empirical evidence that there are multiple universes and idea that goes back to Leibniz. Lastly, even if there were other universes or an infinite number, it would still rest upon material contingency, which still requires an ultimate cause that is uncaused and necessary.

Published by: Piers Horner
Wales 10/02/2009 10:00 AM EST

Oh for goodness sake, would some of you stop being so offended and, subsequently, offensive in your comments. I'm also an astrophysicist but I believe in God as well, for SIMILAR reasons to those outlined here. I agree that, in my experience, the picture painted in this article is not an accurate description of the response of the scientific community to the question of creation, but to all those who have responded in a negative way to it please please realise and respect the fact that your own views are as much based on ideology and faith as ours. Does a multiverse exist? Maybe; but we certainly don't know for sure, and it seems possible, even likely, that we never will. To say that "it is now fairly widely accepted that this Universe is only one of an infinite number of Universes... " etc etc (see ian's post) is just as much a distortion of the facts as anything in the article, if only because it presents the idea as FACT when in reality there is no empirical evidence to support it. It is based on a worldview that doesn't believe in a God. Intellectually, that's fine, but please don't present it as established 'truth'. Even if the multiverse does exist, it still says nothing about the truly fundamental question of why anything exists at all. What we believe is based ultimately on faith, not science, and we should ALL recognise that. Ian, I appreciate your argument, but do you realise how offensive it is to refer to someone else's God as a 'Sky Fairy'?

Published by: DAVID LARSEN
scituate Mass. USA 10/02/2009 07:41 AM EST

It seems futile for the finite mind to try to know and define what it cannot know and that is the factor of what is defined as infinite,as if the infinite is limited by some factor in itself. God is infinite and eternal. How can the finite and created mentality,claim any knowledge of the infinite or eternal. This is impossible as God is! Creation is subject to what is destructible,the creator is indestructible. We can only know the creator by faith,as in faith was born through a virgin birth,God's only begotten son, Jesus Christ. Christ is the factor of one and in him all are defined to have a value,that lasts beyond a finite death and is a new life that transcends time,to be reestablished for eternity. Jesus is the resurrection and the life. Faith is hope and in hope all things are sustained,maintained by perpetual love. Christ is the way,truth and the life. Love abides as all is love and God is love. Want meaning? Find meaning through love. Find the meaning of infinite love. Live love! The finite mind can only ever begin to comprehend it. The big bang just might be a black hole without love.

Published by: Edmund Schluessel
Cardiff, Wales 10/02/2009 07:06 AM EST

The theological argument presented in this article is basically the wrong approach. If God, as He is often conceived of, is out there -- then He is a being beyond scientific proof or disproof, indeed, beyond physics: meta-physical. Attempting to derive God through the measurement of physical things is only so much superstition and numerology. Furthermore, such a pursuit is a distracting errand. Whether you believe or you do not (and I do not), physics will show you that the universe is filled with "elegant truths" of a harmony more perfect than any work of Bach or Michaelangelo or Brunelleschi. If you believe, then: you do not use a cathedral or a mighty hymn to prove God, but to celebrate and praise Him. If your faith is strong, you do not need proof. And if you do not believe, then: we have this universe about us full of beauty within beauty within infinite beauty, and for our metaphysical needs this is enough.

Published by: Doug D.
Lancaster PA USA 10/02/2009 03:18 AM EST

ian, unfortunately most atheists do not know about membranes and multiple dimensional universes. I really think that we should get our act together and all atheists be aware of the latest theories. Still, your post is right on.

Published by: Enrique Woll
Lima, PERU 10/02/2009 01:36 AM EST

If God, The Supreme Being, exists, He must do so unconstrained by the so-called time-space and mass-energy that define and constitute the universe, but if it was a creation, and He The Creator, He must have done this necessarily from His own Self; and thus, the stated beliefs do not threaten His existence. I am sure you can tell that I am not an astrophysicist or a theologian.

Published by: Enrique Woll
Lima, PERU 10/02/2009 01:34 AM EST

In any case, nothing about the occurrence of a big bang in the first traceable instant of the universe would necessarily indicate the advent of a singularity at its origin, such as a near infinite mass-energy density over a near infinitesimal amount of time, as there would be no reason to believe that such high density would be unsustainable but for an instant. Though undoubtedly there was a singularity in the rate of expansion of the universe at the moment of the big bang, it seems perfectly reasonable to think that the enormous mass-energy in the universe could have been contained in a near-infinitesimal amount of space for an infinite amount of time, prior to the big bang, until something changed that broke the existing equilibrium in an instant; and it is equally reasonable to believe that such change could have come from within, without the intervention of an external force.

Published by: Enrique Woll
Lima, PERU 10/02/2009 01:31 AM EST

Let us accept that all astrophysical theories seem to signal the advent or occurrence of a physical singularity at the time-origin, and the space-origin of the universe we exist in, if indeed space is defined by the mass-energy it contains. And let us suppose that a singularity is the near infinite value of a variable over a near infinitesimal amount of time. In this case, it would be an extremely radical and time-limited discontinuity in the value of a measurement, a physical property, the density of the universe. But of course, this is only a mathematical definition used by engineers, and if one considers that everything is relative in the physical world, the singularity in question here would not be a singularity at all if one used an appropriately small time scale; indeed, to a hypothetical being whose entire life is but a few multiples of the duration of such singularity, it would appear to last quite a long time. Nothing in the universe can be truly infinitesimal.

Published by: Larry C
Rochester NY USA 10/01/2009 11:17 PM EST

Thank you Father for your time & efforts in this arena. To read the catter-walling of the opposition you'd think you'd stabbed them in the eye. Science & mankind's reasoning, logic & tools can only explain so much. The Atheists can not go back beyond that physical boundary of the initial Big Bang. Any & all attempts to do so fail miserably. They are relegated to speculation & vain hypotheses, in short, Faith & Hope in Science that someday in some way a better answer that might support their particular overall view of "Creation" might come to mind & meet the basic scientific criteria being able to demonstrate the process in a reproducible manner. At the very least, they Hope that any other methodologies will not support the "GOD" or independent outside Time and Space Model(s). However as we all sit here today reading this article the overwhelming evidence is against the Atheistic POV. However, they will have Faith that science (their God) will provide another better answer at some future date & time. Thus there is no need for them to recognize much less support the current Scientific efforts of people like Fr. Spitzer and other world renowned notables in this field. Nothing can not come from nothing. That is FACT! As unpleasant as that may be these otherwise learned dissenters now have the burden of proof placed squarely upon their shoulders to show how short of an outside influence the Matter for the Universe came into existence & was placed in motion. Good LucK.

Published by: Dan
Santa Fe 10/01/2009 10:46 PM EST

At that time Jesus said in reply, 'I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike.' – Gospel of Matthew 11:25

Published by: StarScream
Kennesaw, GA USA 10/01/2009 09:14 PM EST

There's just too many logical leaps here to be taken seriously as a philosophical argument. What if the universe arose from the "quantum foam?" That cause is therefore the Christian God? Non-sequitur. If the universe does turn out to be "caused" then it will more than likely be a natural cause. Even if you can somehow establish that this was a "supernatural cause" then still, at best that only gets you Aristotle's prime mover deistic god. Arguing that "the universe is caused, therefore theism is true" is like arguing that since I have a cat, I wear size 12 shoes. It's ridiculous.

Published by: lome
SJCA USA 10/01/2009 08:02 PM EST

What about the theory of "cause and effect?" Try analyzing it in reverse,what kind of conclusion you think you'll get? "What caused the Universe to exist? It it from Nothing or from something?" I believe this was the question of ST. Tomas to scientific minds of his days,that never get answered. Anyway,the scripture is telling us that at the end..Every knees shall bend and all tongues confess that Jesus is Lord..

Published by: Ron
Clinton, AR USA 10/01/2009 07:32 PM EST

If we were able to detect what lies beyond the limits of our finite universe, my hunch is that we would find infinite space and eternal time. Our universe would be but one of an infinite number of universes created by an infinite number of so-called "big bangs". I think Fr. Spitzer is correct in that a creator could only exist outside of space/time. However, if space is infinite and time is eternal, that encompasses everything...there is no place outside of space/time for the existence of a creator. Just my opinion, God will understand if I'm wrong.

Published by: Eshto
Madison, WI USA 10/01/2009 04:51 PM EST

This is just nonsense. As usual, there's a gap in our understanding of something, and instead of admitting we don't know and waiting to see if we can discover a real answer, you give up and say "God did it". It's the same argument from ignorance theists have been using for years. And it's incredibly arrogant, because even if some abstract creator God could be proved, you still have no reason to believe it's the Christian one. Could be Thor, or Zeus. Could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It could be an indifferent deist god, or it could even be a malevolent god.

Published by: Pat Rutter
GrassValley,CA.USA 10/01/2009 04:28 PM EST

I love this. Thank God for this priest. I smile and tingle just reading the possibility of atheists everywhere finally getting IT. I will print this out and also send it to everyone I know. Praise Our Father and His Glorious Love of us to care sending Fr. Spitzer and Prof. Penrose.

Published by: Nathan
USA 10/01/2009 02:54 PM EST

It's just the argument from design all over again. What you're saying is, if the cosmological constants were different, things would be different. Really. You don't "know" that life wouldn't exist, it may be different life, different types of life that evolved differently. It is also a non-sequitor. We don't know what happened before [insert time or event here] so "GODDIDIT." It isn't a scientific conclusion. Even if it were true, it would simply lead to "Who created the creator?" Since you claimed that nothing can come from nothing. If nothing only produces nothing, and there is something here, perhaps there was always something here. You saying, "God is that something" makes as much sense as "Ganesh is that something," or "I was that something." If that is your "scientific conclusion" you are a bad scientist.

Published by: Atheist
USA 10/01/2009 01:56 PM EST

This is just silly.

Published by: Reginald Selkirk
Cyperspace 10/01/2009 01:53 PM EST

Published by: Manuel De León
Chicago, IL 10/01/2009 01:25 PM EST

It's absolutly possible "to reason the Faith" as Fr. Brambila explained on his book titled in Spanish "Que Dios es la Mar de Raro". If there is an order on the Universe should be Something that ordered it (God). As simple as that. Manuel.

Published by: Atheist guy
Canada 10/01/2009 12:27 PM EST

This is just the same old lame 'fine tuning' argument that has been around for ages. Just the same old bunk in a pseudo-scientific wrapper. This is still religion and not science. If this is the evidence for God, forgive me for not swallowing it. It is totally unconvincing. Since almost all of the universe is hostile to life, I would have to say that if it was 'created', it was created in perfect harmony for stars and not life.

Published by: Chuck
Seattle 10/01/2009 12:19 PM EST

Someone better tell Victor Stenger.. he looks at the same evidence and sees no god whatsoever.

Published by: Michael McDonough
NJ, USA 10/01/2009 11:08 AM EST

I wish Fr. Spitzer well. I will remain skeptical, however, that one can base any argument for God's existence (I am a theist) directly on any scientific theory. However, to the extent that Fr. Spitzer is not saying that, though the article appears to do do, and really means that the Big Bang and the cosmological constants provide the evidence for the contingency of reality, which does form the basis for the cosmological argument for God's existence, the series should be very interesting to watch. And I am very respectful of Prof. Roger Penrose, who is very conscientious and precise in expressing just exactly what astrophysics says specifically.

Published by: Chris
Barre/MA/US 10/01/2009 10:07 AM EST

There must be a creator because of singularities? How absurd. This is Iron Age reasoning at its best. Just because we don't understand the origin of the universe fully it doesn't give us reason to opt for a "really smart" and "loving" creator. And the arguement that this universe is not "violent and chaotic" is absolutely wrong. We just happen to be on a planet going around a star that is "safe" right now. Go tell your "safe" story to the trillions of creatures that have died in mass extinctions (most likely cosmic in origin) over the past 4.5 billion years... Possibly someday we will know the full nature of the universe. But the universe needs a creator no more than the Sun needs Apollo to tow it across the sky... Every human-centric ideology applied to astronomy has been wrong so far. We're not at the center of the solar system, not at the center of the universe and an ~90 billion light year radius universe was not built just for us. We're on a tiny little planet orbiting an obscure star (out of hundreds of billions) in a remote corner of a small spiral galaxy (out of hundreds of billions). The writer has proved nothing.

Published by: Laurens
MA 10/01/2009 09:53 AM EST

The problem with a creator is that from logic, everything has an origin. So from nothing comes nothing leaves us with the dogma where the creator has always existed.

Published by: Dan
KC, KS 10/01/2009 09:32 AM EST

This is a god of the gaps argument the gap being "it demands the existence of a singularity and therefore of a Creator outside space and time". The problem for them is, this creator gap in no way appeals to any "revealed" religion, and if this gap is scientifically solved without an intelligent creator, their whole argument falls down.

Published by: Jesus Ferras
Austin. Tx 10/01/2009 08:47 AM EST

Something interesting to share

Published by: Bren
Melbourne/Victoria/Australia 10/01/2009 04:53 AM EST

Rate: Good

a) As addressed by Dawkins et al., the idea of a singularity sparked by a Creator is not new, and raises the question of who created the Creator? The scenario posed by Fr. Spitzer relies upon an unexplainable complexity and is therefore scientifically improbable. b) Even were it be established that a Creator made the singularity and its subsequent Bang, it does not establish proof of an interventionist god and therefore remains irrelevant to questions of morality and the nature of being.

Published by: Jorg
Portland, OR, USA 10/01/2009 01:57 AM EST

Rate: Good

"Contemporary astrophysics hold the scientific key to prove the existence of God, but unfortunately very few know the scientific facts." As an astrophysicist (UC Berkeley 1996) and a biologist, I find that statement to be nothing short of laughable.

Published by: Arthur
United Kingdom 10/01/2009 01:48 AM EST

Rate: Regular

Stephen Hawking believes that the Universe was, in effect, a black hole in reverse. Meaning that the singularity came from a black hole, possibly from another Universe. If Hawking is proved correct, people like Fr. Spitzer will have to go back to the drawing board, because there is no evidence of a creator in that model. In fact, there is no evidence of a creator in any serious scientific model, let alone one that cares about what you get up to on a Sunday. Nice try but another fail.

Published by: William J. Ambs
Lansdale, PA, USA 09/30/2009 11:24 PM EST

Scientists are just like other people. It is hard to admit one has been wrong for many years.

Published by: Dan
Santa Fe 09/30/2009 09:26 PM EST

This is very exciting stuff--Thank you Father Spitzer.

Published by: Linus
Kansas City,Ks, U.S.A. 09/30/2009 07:38 PM EST

I wish Fr. Spitzer well but his project depends on whether it can be proved that the extant universe had a beginning point and that it is expanding. I don't think we should hope to be able to prove , scientifically , that God exists. The proofs of Thomas Aquinas are valid to reasonable people. And you really can't hope to "prove" anything to the others. They require a special act of God.

Published by: ian
usa 09/30/2009 06:12 PM EST

Rate: Regular

This is one of the most insane incoherent and inaccurate ramblings I have read in a long time, so thank you for that. As always, the church is at least 10 year behind in its understanding of where science is progressing. The Big Bang theory has evolved well beyond the idea that everything started as a singularity and that before that no time or space existed. It is now fairly widely accepted that this universe is only one of an infinite number of universes, likely kicked off in the big bang event by the collision of membranes, not by your magical sky fairy. The reason that the laws of the universe lend themselves so readily to our existence isn't because they were "created" that way, but because in an infinite number of universes there are an infinite number of potential outcomes for the laws of physics and therefore an infinite probability that a universe such as ours must exist. Your complete abuse and cherry picking of Penrose's work is shameful. No different I suppose though from your cherry picking of the Bible in all matters moral. Even if there were to be scientific evidence someday for a creator, the idea that the vast complexity of the universe you yourself now accept as fact, is created by the Biblical god is clearly ridiculous. He was powerless in comparison to the entity that would have to exist to create the universe the way we know it today, not as it was seen 2000 years ago by desert dwelling peasants. Good read though, pure comedy.

Published by: Dean Brunel
Somerville MA USA 09/30/2009 05:57 PM EST

Every observation of man leads ultimately to contradiction.Our sense of reality is constantly in doubt.Concepts such as "beginning" and "end", are man-made and are , finally, absurd.However,the 'reality' of man's observations leads to a sense of a deeper truth:that there is something beyond and underlying man's view of things: a mathematics yet to be found;a greater dimension ; something akin to a pattern within the singularity.A pattern that existed immediately after the big bang.Does that pattern strictly imply a pattern maker? I think it does. Dean Brunel

Published by: Wilbur Bolton
Los Alamitos, CA, USA 09/30/2009 05:44 PM EST

Now if I can only get some of my adult grandchildren to read this! Or view the video when it comes out

Published by: Bruce the Original Creator
Eden 09/30/2009 05:26 PM EST

Could it be explained why the original creator is not in fact a nine billion metre high, green furred and seventeen eyed muppet called Bruce with an extremely odd sense of humour.

Published by: Ray Ingles
Detroit, MI USA 09/30/2009 03:56 PM EST

The "big bang" isn't established as "the beginning". It's just the furthest we've been able to push our understanding back. Once we didn't know how mountains formed, then continents, then the Earth, then the Solar System, then the galaxy, etc. The "fine tuning" idea also has problems. First, of course, it's not clear that they could be any different - as Einstein put it, "Did God have any choice in creating the universe"? Second, the extent of fine tuning has been somewhat exaggerated. One study, varying several of the parameters, found that stars of some kind would form in at least 40% of the possible universes.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com