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

CNA ^ | 9/30/2009

[markomalley]

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 Hawkins 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.”

[NYer]

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[numberonepal]

This is all well and good, but if you REALLY want to see evidence for the existence of God, check out the Mandelbrot Set.

Or any fractal set for that matter. Universal constants (especially e and c) peak my curiosity. The fact that the full moon and the sun are exactly the same size in the sky is something a lot of folks can get their noodle around too.

[onedoug]

I’m not sure God would like all this betting about.

[fhayek]

The Mandelbrot Set is located on the complex plane. That is simply a two dimensional graph with real numbers on one axis, and imaginary number on the other. (Imaginary numbers, you may remember from algebra are multiples of the square root of -1). In effect, this graph represents all of " God's numbers). By using a very simple formula which uses iteration (the answer is plugged back into the formula, the result is either bounded and therefore belongs to the set or it spirals off to infinity. The rate at which the result spirals to infinity will cause it to be assigned an arbitrary color. By plotting the results, you produce a geometric figure, a fractal, in fact. If you magnify the edge of the figure, you will always find new and unusual complications. The boundary of figure is, in fact, infinite. You could never measure it. Go to Youtube and type in "Mandelbrot Set". There are dozens of "magnifications" that will take you on a spectacular "journey" deeper into the set. You could never explore it all. You will even come across mini Mandelbrot sets embedded all over the place.

Not to wax too metaphysical, but this geometric figure has always existed. Its structure, its properties, have been around for billions of years waiting for us to discover it. I took the confluence of technology and mathematical insight to find it. To me, this was one of God's "Easter Eggs" planted for us to find. Plus it goes great with Pink Floyd music.

[tacticalogic]

That's all you need to know.

So far, everytime someone has told me that it's turned out that there was actually a lot more to it that they'd rather I didn't know about.

[M Kehoe]

You've simply restated Pascal's Wager.

Correct. The simplicity lies in the logical statement: It is, or it isn't. On or off. Binary mathematics. There are no refutations.

Thanks for playing.

5.56mm

[Bellflower]

ping

[Bellflower]

Interesting site. TY

[Brugmansian]

The (Big Bang) theory, developed by the Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître . . .

Lemaître said psychology, not astrophysics, is where he saw evidence of God.

[rae4palin]

Amen. The existence of God is self-evident & obvious.

[Kevmo]

Those are not refutations, they're merely criticisms. You fail to understand it, just like Voltaire. From your link: But Voltaire, like many other critics, misunderstood the Wager. Pascal did not offer the wager as a proof. [12] It is merely a conclusion to his arguments against certainty that relies on the notion that reason is untrustworthy and that discerning God's actual existence appears to be "a coin toss." If reason can be trusted on the question of God's existence, then the wager simply does not apply. re⋅fute  /rɪˈfyut/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-fyoot] Show IPA Use refute in a Sentence See web results for refute See images of refute –verb (used with object), -fut⋅ed, -fut⋅ing. 1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge. 2. to prove (a person) to be in error. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Origin: 1505–15; < L refūtāre to check, suppress, refute, rebut, equiv. to re- re- + -fūtāre presumably, “to beat” (attested only with the prefixes con- and re-; cf. confute )

[Bellflower]

We know little about singularities. In fact some scientists believe that micro-singularities might temporarily exist throughout our own universe and even on the Earth itself.

This universe did not and could not create itself. This universe came into being as a product of a "singularity". We can know that the "singularity" must be utterly marvelous beyond our comprehension. Look around and look at our creation from the minute to the grand and know that God exist and that He is profoundly glorious beyond anything we can even begin to imagine.

[Kevmo]

Those are not refutations, they're merely criticisms. You fail to understand it, just like Voltaire.

From your link:
But Voltaire, like many other critics, misunderstood the Wager. Pascal did not offer the wager as a proof. [12] It is merely a conclusion to his arguments against certainty that relies on the notion that reason is untrustworthy and that discerning God's actual existence appears to be "a coin toss." If reason can be trusted on the question of God's existence, then the wager simply does not apply.


re⋅fute  /rɪˈfyut/
Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-fyoot] Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -fut⋅ed, -fut⋅ing.
1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
2. to prove (a person) to be in error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin: 1505–15; < L refūtāre to check, suppress, refute, rebut, equiv. to re- re- + -fūtāre presumably, “to beat” (attested only with the prefixes con- and re-; cf. confute )

[Candor7]

Thank you so much for your kind, inspired comment.

[Soothesayer9]

There was an interesting tidbit in a science journal where one of Carl Sagan’s friends (fellow ph.d) was walking with Sagan around campus and Sagan remarked to him how he couldn’t understand why he believes in God with all the evidence that discounts his existence, and the friend says “well I can say the same about you! Mountains of evidence and you turn a blind eye!”. I think his friend was a biochemist but can’t remember which journal this was in.

Now thats something I have never understood..how an atheist and Christian can remain steadfast friends in the face of such a volatile topic. But to each his own I guess.