Whether
the Idea of God is Superfluous?
Reflections
About an Eternal Universe
A challenge and
reflection for Atheists,
Agnostics, Ignostics, and the like;
and for Believers too.
By universe we understand here what was at the beginning of
time—or, for those who do not believe in the existence of an absolute time
would be when the first physical entity appears in the world—that is, at the
first microsecond (a millionth of a second) of the big bang which, according to
physicists, is considered as the beginning of time and space. We are not
talking here about today’s world which is an evolution and development of what
the universe originally was.
We start this reflection under the hypothetical although
reasonable theory or presupposition that the first proton (or protons, or
whatever it was) of the universe didn’t start by itself, and that physical laws
alone cannot explain their own existence and the existence of the world; this
would mean that a cause “outside” them was required for the existence of the
world. For most people there is a Principle or First Cause of the universe, an
affirmation denied by atheists and by most physicists, although not all. (The
atheist position and the answer to atheism are presented in my book “Intimacy
with God.”) [1]
Departing from the aforesaid premise the question is this: which
of the two following theories seems to be more logical?
1. Whether that
Principle wanted a universe to be, but its execution was “delayed,” and didn’t
take effect eternally but only when time and space were created; or
2. Whether that
Principle’s will that a universe would exist is equally eternal as its own
being.
Theory 1. It seems that there is no incoherence—at least for some
theologians as Thomas Aquinas—in the theory that a Principle wanted to create
something in a way that the execution of its will didn’t take effect from
eternity, but was “delayed” until the duration of some entity started counting
in space; and so this theory, at least for them, seems possible. To think that
the Principle wanted to "postpone" the creation of time and the world
is a mere presupposition; in this case the universe is not eternal but only
eternally “programmed.”
This is the theistic interpretation. This theory seems incongruous
to me because that implies a contingent action in a necessary and immutable
Principle, which is incoherent. Creation of time seems contradictory because
there was not a “when” for time to be created. So, time has no beginning, and
must have always being. This is somehow paradoxical.
Theory 2. The second theory says that the universe is eternal
because in that eternal Principle the act of willing and the act of doing are
one and the same act; they identify. If there is a Principle that exists by
necessity, all its actions would be necessary; it would act by necessity. And
in fact in such a Principle there is only one action: to be; by this action everything that is, necessarily exists. So
the Universe is as eternal as its Principle; it is eternal, and a universe must
exist, ever; not necessarily the one we know, but a universe.
Do we Need Two
Eternal Ones? The immediate question is: do we need two eternal and
“competitive” ones, a Principle, and the universe? Isn’t it more reasonable and
logical to think that there is only one eternal? The theistic position has
traditionally be that we need God to explain the existence of a created and temporal world (theory 1); but if the universe has
always been, eternally, there is no creation. In this case we don’t need a God
different from the Universe, and the idea of a God-Creator would be
superfluous, and surpasses necessity. There wouldn’t be another God than the
Universe itself, nor another universe than God itself.
According to my direct contacts with atheists most of them believe
in an axiomatic existence, ever existing; this interpretation is in fact close
to some interpretations of God. Agnostics on the other hand say: “I don't know
whether or not God exists;” and ignostics say: “I
don't know what you mean when you say: ‘God exists.’"
Question About an Eternal Universe. But if the Universe
is eternal there is a question about this theory of an eternal Universe: where
does this eternal Universe come from? And in all fairness theists should ask
themselves, also: “Where does their God come from?” We’ll deal with this
question too.
Regarding the "where from" of an eternal Universe there
are two possibilities:
1. That the universe
comes from another one, and in this case we come to theory 1, and that there is
a Principle of the universe; or
2. That, as a brute
fact, the universe comes spontaneously from itself. In this case we may call it
Nature with its laws, or simply the Universe.
The Eternal Universe. It seems that the Universe of the second possibility
cannot be a physical thing alone as the one from which the big bang started; [2]
it must be something non-material, timeless, spaceless,
and different from anything that is known in the physical and biological world;
there must be something "behind" and “beyond” the first physical
entity that started the big bang. Why? There are two main reasons.
First Reason. The first quanta couldn’t be a quantum fluctuation that
came spontaneously to exist, as it happens in the quantum world, today, because
the quanta which appear so spontaneously in today’s world—as some physicists
say—take place in an already existing world, while “then” there was nothing;
these are two completely different settings
of environment and conditions.
Second Reason. Because, as far as we know, physical things have a
beginning and an end; they have a cause; they neither think nor have knowledge,
nor move by themselves; they simply follow pre-existing laws which are outside
them.
Questions Regarding
Natural Laws. The first question
about natural or physical laws is: where do they come from? What prompted these
laws to exist, and to start that primeval universe? It seems pretty awkward to
think that there was one law of nature whose intent was to produce only one
effect: creation; natural laws govern events that repeat. Unless we’d accept
the fact that this law is still active, and is creating new universes all
around space. But even in this case we should ask: how,
and how often is this law activated? There is no answer.
The second question regarding physical laws is: do they exist by
themselves as independent entities? Plato, and some philosophers after him,
thought that the laws of nature had an existence on their own, independently of
the physical world, and that they are eternal; he called them “Forms;” men
discover them, and they are “there” timelessly, transcendent and eternal; they
are non-physical, and they cannot be visualized. But not all scientists agree.
The famous and internationally known physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies
writes:
“Platonic laws are not ‘reality.’ As long as
scientists are fixated on immutable Platonic laws that transcend the physical
universe, the unification of physics and mathematics will be impossible, and
mathematical nature of physical laws will remain mysterious.” [3]
The other alternative would be to think that natural laws are lucubrations or discoveries of human mind.
Changing laws? When I talk about
“physical laws” I am not meaning necessarily the present laws of this universe
as we know them today, because there could be other universes that we do not
know with different laws; or that the current laws of nature haven’t been the
same from the beginning of the universe; they might have changed more than once
since the start of the universe. But as long as there are physical entities
there have been laws that govern them.
Looking for
Reasonable Answers. It seems that there must be something else “beyond”
those laws and “behind” the first physical thing that existed; there must be a
kind of mind, or power, or intelligence that surpasses the first physical
thing, and not a simple physical thing; this cannot be; there must be an
uncaused cause.
This is so evident that, making an interruption or aside here, I
want to include the comment that professed atheist D. P. (name withhold for
privacy reasons) wrote to me on September 18, 2010. He told me—probably
unaware of the ramifications of what he was writing—that “It does not follow
that because planets, stars and galaxies have a cause (gravity) that all of
existence will require a cause as well. It is, in fact, contradictory to say that the source of all causes
requires a cause. The word "cause" is meaningless outside the
context of the universe.” (Emphasis mine). There must
be an uncaused existence, something else beyond the physical world; even
atheists recognize it.
This "something else" must also be timeless, eternal,
because if it would be temporal, it would have had a beginning and a cause
outside it. It cannot be subject to physical laws, because it is “before” the
physical laws, and/or over the physical laws; it must be the author, (the
“Author”?), the origin of the physical laws; the one which prompted these laws
to produce the universe. It must be uncaused because it didn't begin to exist;
the premise has been: it always exists.
Nature as the
Explanation. Could that principle be Nature itself? It could be, if for Nature
we understand not a physical force only, or a physical principle alone, but a
power, or mind, or intelligence; it could be if by Nature we mean something
that physical laws as we know them cannot explain, a metaphysical Nature or
Super-Natural. Physical things alone do not explain their existence.
In this case Nature would be:
1. The principle of
“all-that-is,” or may be.
2. It must be an
infinite intelligence, energy and power;
3. It must be the
plenitude of existence; it must be by
itself.
4. It must be, or have,
or “contain" in itself all kinds of existence; rather, it should be the
total Existence: all physical, mindful, and spiritual existence.
5. An infinite
Intelligence, Energy, and Power by which everything is.
Can we see God in
this Nature-Universe? Yes, we may; I’ll explain. Einstein, Spinoza, and many scientists
and philosophers call the first Principle of All, God. It is not the God of
theism, or the one depicted in many places of the Bible; this God of the Bible
seems to them as alien to science. Nor is it the God of pantheism—all physical
things of today's universe only; physical things are temporal and certainly
different from the genitor or starter of the universe.
But when by "Nature-Universe" is understood the
principle and fullness of existence, then that concept of Nature is close to
the idea of God: the God-Nature or the Nature-God. This would be a reasonable
concept of God. You might disagree giving to this Entity the name of God, but
words do not matter; it could be called also Nature-Force, or
Nature-Intelligence, or Physical-Metaphysical-Nature. By the same token you may
call it Wisdom, Power, Intelligence; in essence it is the same reality, the
plenitude and wholeness of existence, the fullness of Being existing
by itself.
Roots of
misunderstanding. It seems that the
misunderstanding in this matter—God-Nature-Universe—arises from making God and
Nature two essentially different entities; that the confusion comes from
considering Nature as an entity or power distinct and separate from God,
instead of seeing God in Nature, in
the universe as it is; as if God, and the forces that produce
and control the phenomena and processes of the world were two separate things,
instead of seeing God in them, and the laws of nature as the operation of God
governing the world. I’ll clarify what I mean.
Unity Nature-God. Theism established a division,
distinction and separation God-world, and has seen Nature as a kind of entity
completely apart from God; this dualism pervades Western culture. There is
indeed a distinction between the force, the power and knowledge of Nature, and
the effects it produces; the first has been called Natura naturans which means nature doing what nature does; and the second has
been called Natura naturata which
is like the product of the first one. So, there is an active Nature and a passive Nature.
But when we come to
the active Nature (Natura naturans), we
cannot say that Nature is a power by itself and independent of God, but Nature is no
other than the fullness of the power of God manifesting, creating and producing
the passive nature (Natura naturata). Nature does not have any power as an entity
by itself but it is the very action of God in the world. In this sense, Nature is the
presence or manifestation of God in the physical world; and when we “identify”
Nature with God, we solve most difficulties, enigmas, and contradictions.
Identity and
Distinction. I wouldn’t limit God
to the physical things and phenomena that we see in Nature; that would mean to
see a limited God, a changing God, a non-perfect God. [4]
My view is that of a perfect God, a transcendent God, that is, a God that is
beyond and transcends the physical and visible Nature, time, space: the
transcendent God (Natura naturans).
And, at the same time, a God who makes itself present in and through all processes and events of Nature, time and space,
and the whole universe: the immanent God (Natura naturata). A God, not distant, but a God
which is here and everywhere in all that exists, because he is no other than
All-Existence, all-that-is.
Spinoza’s view is somehow different; he says:
I should perhaps say not “explain” but “reminds
the reader” that by “Natura Naturans” we
must understand that which is in itself; that is, the
attributes of substance that express eternal and infinite essence; God, insofar
as he is considered a free cause. By “Natura Naturata” I understand all that follows from the
necessity of God’s nature… all the modes of God’s attributes insofar as they
are considered as things which are in God and can neither be, nor be conceived
without God.” [5]
People Are Turning
their Backs to God. A great part of believers believe in a non-existing God; theism of
its own has failed to present a God acceptable to science, to reality, and to
the facts of nature; theism has failed presenting the "identity"
God-Universe or God-Nature, Existence alone, I Am. Most professors of science, philosophy and theology, today’s
youth, and even the masses, have turned their back to that “God” as
incompatible with science and as unacceptable to reason. Just look at the pages
they have posted in the internet, and see for yourself.
Can you imagine what will be of the world in a few years with the communication
and information that we have today? What can we expect? A world without God!
Where Does The
Eternal Entity Come From? We must now confront the question: “Where does this
Entity called God come from?” You may see that in all this argumentation the
premise has been that there is something, whichever it is, that forever
existed; which never began to exist
because it always is (better than has been which has a temporal
connotation). A being like this, by definition, doesn't need cause, because it didn't start, and, as such, does not
have a starting time. It would be contradictory to
request a cause of something which, by definition, never started but always is.
Cosmologist Paul Davies writes:
Who, or what, promotes the “merely possible’”
to the “actual existing”? This question is the analogue of the problem of “who
made God” or “who designed the Designer.” We still have to accept as a “given,”
without explanation, one particular theory, one
specific mathematical description, drawn from a limitless number of
possibilities. And the universes described by almost all the other theories
would be barren. [6]
This has been the main premise: a being whichever it is, call it
Nature, Universe, or God, whichever exists, by necessity: it must be the
Existence. Each person, scientist-philosopher or not, may have a different view
or name for this Entity, but the reality is the same: the Existence!
A Universe That May
be God. Could we apply the same argumentation to the Universe? Yes, when
by this word we mean not just physical things, but an infinite Intelligence,
Energy and Power which forever existed, and who is all powerful, the Principle
from which everything exists. Whether this Entity (or God) is a person, or
personal, is the subject of another reflection. [7]
But we must say upfront that an anthropomorphic and fantasy God does not
exist.
Oh Existence! Eternal Being and Beginning!
Beginning without beginning, and Beginning of
all!
Ever present: you are always.
In everything present: you are here always.
Infinite Intelligence: you know all, and
everything is open to your “eyes.”
Energy: you create all, and are creating all
now.
Power: you can do everything, and from your
domain nothing nor no one escapes.
Death would be sweet if we may say: “Amen”.
Oh Existence! You never die!
Oh Existencia!
Ser y Principio eterno!
Principio sin
principio, y principio de todo.
Siempre
presente: tu siempre eres.
En todo
presente: tu siempre
estás.
Infinita
Inteligencia: todo lo sabes, y está patente a tus “ojos.”
Energía: todo
lo creas, y lo estás creando ahora.
Poder: todo lo
puedes, y de tu dominio nada ni nadie se escapan.
La muerte es
dulce cuando podemos decir: “Amén”.
Oh Existencia!
Tu nunca mueres!
You
may go to the Home Page and to the Directory of Updates, here.
You
may know the author, here.
You may contact the author, here.
You
may see the Foreword, here.
INTIMACY \ TIME-ETRNITY 11-01-10 05-19-11
[1] Jairo Mejia, Intimacy with God – Jesus the Model (New
York: iUniverse, 2010), 1.2; 3.5.
[2] Today’s universe cannot be older
than the big bang, or eternal, because the light of the stars would have had
time to travel to earth, and it would be so luminous that we wouldn’t have
night.
[3] Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, (Boston: First Mariner Books, 2008), 239, 241.
[4] Please see Reflection The Name of God: Is it Noun or a Verb?
[5] Ethics, Part I, Prop. 29, Scholium.
Michael L. Morgan, Spinoza Complete Works
(Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2002), pg. 234.
[6] Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, (Boston: First
Mariner Books, 2008), 209
[7] Please see reflection Is God a person or personal?