

### Proving God Exists

Physics, Cosmology, and the Universal Mind

By Ken Levi

Copyright 2018 Ken Levi

Smashwords Edition

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be resold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additioonal copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to your favorite book retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Cover Credit

Image Credit: NASA. Drawing Credit: Wolfram Freudling et al (STECF), ESO, ESA, NASA. Cover Work: http://www.yourebookcover.com

### FRONT

" _Our revels now are ended. These our actors,_

As I foretold you, were all spirits and

Are melted into air, into thin air:

And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,

The cloud capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,

The solemn temples, the great globe itself,

Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve

And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,

Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff

As dreams are made on, and our little life

Is rounded with a sleep."

(The Tempest, William Shakespeare)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

Introduction

Part I. Omnipotence

Section One. Omnipotent

A. The Concept of God as Omnipotent  
B. Evidence for God as Omnipotent

Section Two. Omnificent

A. The Concept of God as Creator  
B. Evidence for God as Creator

Section Three. Existential

A. The Concept of God as Being  
B. Evidence for God as Being

Section Four. Eternal

A. The Concept of God as Eternal  
B. Evidence for God as Eternal

Section Five. Ubiquitous

A. The Concept of God as Everywhere  
B. Evidence for God as Everywhere

Conclusion

Part II. Omniscience

Section One. Purposeful

A. The Concept of God as Purposeful  
B. Evidence for God as Purposeful

Section Two. Omniscient

A. The Concept of God as Omniscient  
B. Evidence for God as Omniscient

Section Three. Conscious

A. The Concept of God as Conscious  
B. Evidence for God as Conscious
Section Four. Immanent

A. The Concept of God as Immanent  
B. Evidence for God as Immanent
Section Five. Good

A. The Concept of God as Good  
B. Evidence for God as Good

Conclusion

Part III. Physics
Section One. Quantum Mechanics

A. The Theory of Quantum Mechanics  
B. Quantum Mechanics and God

Section Two. Chaos Theory

A. Quantum Mechanics vs. Chaos Theory  
B. Chaos Theory, Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Morality  
C. Chaos Theory and God

Section Three. The "God Particle"

A. The Higgs Boson  
B. The Higgs Boson and.God

Section Four. The Multiverse

A. The Theory of the Multiverse  
B. The Multiverse and God

Section Five. The Second Law

A. P.W. Atkins and The Second Law of Thermodynamics  
B. The Second Law and God

Section Six. String Theory

A. The Concept of String Theory  
B. String Theory and God Section

Section Seven. Supersymmetry

A. The Concept of Supersymmetry  
B. Supersymmetry and God

Section Eight. Berkenstein's Bound

A. The Swerve  
B. The Swerve and God

Section Nine. Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG)

A. The Concept of LQG  
B. LQG and God

Conclusion

Part IV. Universal Consciousness

Section One. Review

Section Two. Neuronal Field

Section Three. Evidence of Universal Consciousness

Section Four. Consciousness and Perception

Part V. Final Thoughts
Section One. Human Suffering

Section Two. The Pyramid

Section Three. The Sun

Section Four. Atheism

Section Five. Summing Up

Section Six. A Personal Note

References

INTRODUCTION

Philosopher and atheist Kai Nielsen contends it is impossible to prove God exists. The reason is linguistic. The problem, Nielsen argues is when we say the word "God" we have no idea what we're talking about. So, when we ask the question, "Does God exist," "that question . . . is not as straightforward as it may seem" (Moreland and Nielsen 48). We use the term, of course, all the time, on a daily basis. We talk about "God" so much it seems like we know exactly who we mean. We invoke God's name so often, it takes on a life of its own. But, in fact, Nielsen argues, we have no referent for it. We have nothing to point to, the way we might point to "Joe" or "Mom," or "apple." We never stop to question just what it is or who it is we're alluding to. So, the question of evidence is meaningless; evidence for what? How can we prove or disprove something exists, when we don't know what that something is in the first place?

Most people have some image of God in their heads that gives them the impression they know what they mean when they refer to Him. But on closer examination, this impression has to be wrong. If we picture a figure in a flowing white robe and beard, like Michelangelo famously depicted in the Sistine Chapel, then we are simply imagining a man, a Zeus-like persona with super-human powers. Nielsen refers to this as the "anthropomorphic God" (50). Indeed, early images of God in Christianity were borrowed directly from the Roman likeness of Jupiter. But such a conception, Nielsen argues, is "plainly false and superstitious" (50). Why? It's basically idolatry, a belief in a totemic figure with magical powers.

Moreover, any specific individual that we could point to and observe would have to be limited. Consider, for example, the Greek and Roman deities. Being so much like us in shape and form, they suffered human frailties. They could be tricked, deceived, overpowered. They could be angered, pleased, seduced, bribed. Aside from having super powers, they suffered from all of our weaknesses. So, the problem is two-fold. On the one hand, we have no evidence of such beings. On the other hand, even if we did, precisely because they are so much like us, they would share our faults.

Instead, the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam cannot be seen by humans. He is defined as "an infinite individual" and "transcendent to the Universe" (51). He is everywhere and eternal, and He exists outside time, space, and material constraints of the concrete realm that the rest of us inhabit. Well, what do we mean by an "infinite individual"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? What possible conception can we form of a Being Who is not only immaterial, but also outside of time and space?

Our God is a transcendent entity, not a material entity. He is invisible to us and exists everywhere, but nowhere we can specifically point to. But "You can't encounter a transcendent being" (52). Such a conception, Nielsen argues, is "incoherent." We can't picture what it is we're talking about. We can't point to anyone. We can't even search for Him in hopes of eventually tracking Him down because, by definition, He can't be observed. According to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, "...anything that could be pointed to or literally seen or literally observed or literally experienced or literally noted" would be "some kind of temporal something" and therefore "limited" (51). So, we have no tangible referent for the term "God," nothing we can point to. In effect, we are referencing someone who, by definition, is both empirically and logically incapable of being referenced.

Moreover, the very notion of an "infinite individual" is illogical. It is like saying "one and not one"; or, a "round square"; or, a "married bachelor." Just because we can use the words in a sentence, doesn't mean they make sense. So, Nielsen argues, when we talk about "God," we are actually saying something akin to "round square." We are casually using words to refer to something which, on closer inspection, cannot logically be. Therefore, you can't embark on a discussion of whether or not "God" exists. It is like asking whether or not "poy" exists. Well, what is "poy" anyway? And for that matter, what is "God"? What are we talking about? Once we abandon the anthropomorphic crutch of picturing God as a quasi-human - a concept which Western religions explicitly deny - then all we are left with is an ethereal entity who can neither be observed empirically (by definition) or logically defined.

Aside from the linguistic difficulties, there are many other criticisms of the concept of God. For example, there's the whole question of where did God come from. If He created the Universe, then, who created Him? Then, there's the moral dilemma that if God exists, why is there so much suffering and evil in the world? Plus, there's the empirical objection: if science can explain all the natural phenomena in the Universe, anyway, then isn't it superfluous to seek spiritual causes? The fundamental objection, however, is the linguistic one. That has to be the starting point. What are we talking about when we make reference to "God"? Do we really know? If not, doesn't that render all other questions about God irrelevant?

To meet that challenge this paper will attempt to define what we mean by God. It will present a definition that is not only necessary and sufficient, but also which avoids the linguistic inconsistencies Nielsen describes. The definition will be coherent. Specifically, God will not be defined as either a "transcendent being" or an "infinite individual." My definition will also be subject to proof. Faith is an admirable quality, but it is also vulnerable to demagoguery, and hucksterism, and snake oil salesmen of all stripes. The single most important question in our lives should be subject to at least the same careful, objective, and scientific rigor that lesser questions about our Universe must meet. Whether or not God exists should not be resolved by conjecture, or the weight of public opinion, or peer pressure, or clerical bullying, or guesswork, or instinct, or wishful thinking, or tradition, or the mere say-so of other persons. Nor should it rest on the basis of Pascal's "wager," namely: if you believe in God and you're wrong, then you have nothing to lose; but if you do not believe in God and you're wrong, then you're in serious trouble. So, the safest bet is belief.

This may be the most prudent course, but not the most scientific. In addition, belief is not a question that should rest on the brittle and dubious grounds of mere faith. In courts of law we do not convict someone of a crime unless we can prove his guilt objectively and through the force of evidence. We don't convict him based on a feeling, or an intuition, or even on belief. Certainly, we should not settle for anything less than the same standard of proof when dealing with the ultimate question of God.

Proving the existence of God through reason may sound like "Deism," a concept which arose during the "Age of Reason" in 17th and 18th Century England. Its earliest proponents include the philosophers Hobbes, Locke, and Spinoza, and some of its notable adherents in America were Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and Madison. Deism can be defined as a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme god created the Universe, and that this and other religious truth can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for faith. (Byrne 70).

Deism rejects "revealed religion" (70). Deists contend that "Beliefs to be followed in the present must be based on evidence available in the present" (70). We today have no evidence of revelations that supposedly took place thousands of years ago. Instead, religions institutions, including Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, require us to rely on the word of authorities or traditions that such revelations took place. Such blind faith, such a total dependency on the word of others, "introduces a blank cheque to superstition and falsity" (Toland, 26). It makes us vulnerable to a religion of priests, exerting their own "worldly and political interests" (Byrne 79). Such interests often run "to the detriment of human happiness and liberty" (80).

To that extent, the term Deism does apply here. However, on closer inspection, it does not. In place of "revealed religion," in place of the mere say-so of priests, Deism requires us to base our beliefs on "reason." So far so good. However, early, prominent Deists qualified what they meant by "reason," which they divided into two types: self-evident and demonstrative. Demonstrative reason uses argument and proof. But self-evident reason consists of "intuitive knowledge," that is, truths that are so obvious that you just know them to be fact. This second kind of reason is akin to having a "gut feeling" about something. It is basically what J.P. Moreland and other modern-day authorities mean when they use the pseudo-scientific term "numinous" evidence (Moreland and Nielsen). Such evidence may be personal, as opposed to revealed, but it hardly qualifies as irrefutable proof. We wouldn't convict someone in a court of law based on our gut feelings. Nor would we accept a scientific theory on that basis. We won't accept the existence of God on those grounds either. .

The following sections attempt first to define the essential characteristics of God, and then provide evidence that a Being with those characteristics exists. The evidence must be demonstrative. It can't be merely "revealed" or even "intuitive." It must be based on argument and proof. Following that standard, Part I focuses on the concept of _omnipotence_ and the necessary implications of that concept for other aspects of God. Part II focuses on the concept of _omniscience_ and those other facets of divinity that flow from it.

Part III examines the prevailing theories in physics and cosmology concerning the origins and nature of the Universe. To what extent are these scientific theories consistent with the concept of God? Part IV focuses in on what may be the most critical question of all. What evidence do we have for the existence of a _Universal Mind_?

In the end, the ultimate objective of this essay is to produce a coherent definition of what it is we mean by God, and to provide enough objective proof to sway even an impartial jury that such a Being consistent with that definition exists

PART I. OMNIPOTENCE

Section One. Omnipotent

A. The Concept of an Omnipotent God

God would not be God if He were not omnipotent. Being all powerful is the essence of what we mean when we refer to God. In effect, the word "God" is just a shorthand way of saying a being who has ultimate power. Nothing can be more powerful than God by definition. If any force were more powerful than God, then that force would, in effect, itself be God. The term "ultimate power" is a sufficient substitute for the word "God." Anything less would be, at best, merely a superman.

If there are any powers in the Universe beyond God's control, then He is not supreme. He is limited by something greater than Himself. This is the case with pantheistic deities. Neptune and Loki and Odin and Zeus are all anthropomorphic super men. In mythology, they are constantly being opposed and frustrated and tricked and duped. By contrast, we refer to God as a Being supreme over everything. We worship a "Supreme Being," not an almost supreme being; not a pretty powerful being; but the One Who is supreme over everything; the ultimate.

That is the essence of what we mean by the "All Mighty." Anything less would not be God. He sits at the apex of forces that govern our Universe, all of which are, and must be, subordinate to Him. God is omnipotent by definition.

Might Makes Right

A problem with the omnipotence argument is the implication that might makes right. If we say that God's essential characteristic is power, then all else, morality included, is subordinate.

But God's power is not like man's power. Omnipotent might does make right. God created the Universe. He created life. He created being itself. He is the definitive positive force. Everything that exists, everything we hold dear, is thanks to Him. He is the ultimate source of good. But this can only be true of the Supreme Being. Only for Him are might and right synonymous.

For lesser beings, such as the rest of us, might and right are by no means the same. Man's might can be constructive or destructive. Even at his most constructive, however, man can only grope toward an understanding of the rightness of his course. He never has all the facts. He never realizes all the implications. He never controls all the unintended consequences. His best laid plans often go awry. Therefore, even super-men must be humble and cautious in the exercise of their might. Because we exercise our power imperfectly, _man's_ might can never be synonymous with right. But when we talk about one omnipotent God, His might and right are the same. The design and purpose of the Universe are His. Only His.

B. Evidence for an Omnipotent God

Scientists today hold a modern version of omnipotence. They call it "GUT" - or the Grand Unification Theory. It posits a Universe governed by four elemental forces: gravity, by which the curvature of space effects the path of an object; electromagnetism, which causes positively and negatively charged ions to join; the strong force, which binds the nuclei of atoms; and the weak force, which induces a form radioactivity. At super high temperatures, such as existed at the beginning of the Universe, something interesting happens. At 100 million million million million million degrees Kelvin, three of the four forces are combined into a single force (Weinberg 2). The only holdout is gravity (which may not be a force at all, but simply the effect of mass on spacetime). The GUT theory, however, maintains that all four forces came from a single force, one all powerful force from which all the elemental powers of nature emerged.

So, here is a case where science and religion converge. Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion contends that a single, omnipotent Power governs the Universe. Science does, too. The scientific law of parsimony equates to the religious concept of monotheism. Simpler is better. One is best. A single force makes more sense than a multitude.

Plus, the laws of nature appear to apply everywhere. The speed of light is the same everywhere. The conservation of matter and energy is the same everywhere. The relationship between mass and gravity is the same everywhere. The Universe obeys a single set of laws. These scientific observations reflect what our major religions teach. A single order prevails.

Section Two. Omnificent

A. The Concept of God the Creator

If God is omnipotent, then, by definition, He created everything. The act of creation shaped and defined the Universe and all the forces that govern it. If God did not create these forces, then He cannot be omnipotent. Something besides Himself is determinative. Even if God were presently in control of all the forces of the Universe, if some of those forces were not of his design, then their nature is independent of Him.

For example, I may plant a seed, and determine where it will grow, and nurture it until it becomes a flower. But I didn't create the process by which a seed becomes a flower. The flower obeys the laws of nature, and as a gardener, so must I. Both the flower and I are subordinate to a higher power, the power that created the laws of nature in the first place. For that reason, I am far from being omnipotent in regard to the flower. Nor would God be omnipotent in regard to the Universe, were He not its Creator to begin with.

The ancient Greeks believed in a Universe that was ruled by a set of gods who did not originally create it. Gaia supposedly formed the Earth, only to be succeeded by the Titans and then the Olympians Zeus, Hera, Apollo, and the rest. To the extent these deities reigned over a world not of their own making, however, they contended with forces outside of and frequently greater than themselves. Thus, they were not "supreme" beings, but rather demi-gods. Moreover, when we say God is all powerful, we aren't saying He's totally in control today, but not yesterday. Omnipotence is a term that covers all things, all spaces, and all times. If we take omnipotence to literally mean _all_ powerful, then it includes present, future, and the past as well.

The concept of creation, and, more specifically, "creationism," has been used to counter evolution. Adherents of creationism believe that everything, including all species were directly created by God on Day One. But this is a supremely silly argument. Taken to its extreme, it implies there has never been any growth, any generation, any invention, or, literally any progression whatsoever after Day One. Anything at all that happened after that moment of creation would have to be considered anathema. Obviously, this isn't true.

Creation, rather, encompasses evolution and a Universe that adhered to a design consistent with the laws of nature, of physics, of quantum mechanics that were inherent in its conception.

B. Evidence for God the Creator

The vast majority of reputable scientists today hold that the Universe began in the Big Bang. The most compelling evidence for it comes from Penzias and Wilson's 1963 discovery of microwave background radiation. It permeates the Cosmos everywhere we look. And wherever we look, the radiation is exactly the amount one might predict from a massive explosion some fourteen billion years ago. Nothing else can explain the existence of this radiation, its uniformity throughout the Universe, or its level. It's the best proof we have that the Cosmos was born at a single point in time.

The expansion of the Universe had already been observed. In 1929, the astronomer Edwin Hubble found evidence that galaxies were receding away from Earth at a rate proportional to their distance. All galaxies are moving away from us and also from each other just as they might be in an explosion. Extrapolating backwards from the current expansion, the physicist George Gamow postulated a time when the Universe converged into a point, infinitely tiny, infinitely dense, and infinitely hot some fourteen billion years ago when the initial blast presumably occurred.

Even before the Penzias and Wilson discovery, the Princeton physicist Robert H. Dicke had calculated that if the Big Bang theory were correct, the present temperature of the Universe should be about 3 degrees Kelvin. This figure represents the extent to which the expansion of the Universe would have caused it to cool down from the heat of the initial blast. The temperature of the background radiation Penzias and Wilson observed was 2.7 degrees Kelvin.

It is also logical that the Universe should have a beginning. Otherwise, what's the alternative? It would be that the Universe simply extended back forever. But that would be an infinite regress. The problem with infinite regress is that without a first event, how can there be a second event? How can there be any events at all? It's like trying to climb out of a bottomless well. Where is the first foothold?

Reputable science (as opposed to pseudo-science) today holds that the Big Bang started in a "singularity." A singularity is an entity that is infinitely small and infinitely dense. It therefore does not obey any of the known laws of physics, because "infinite" is not a term that lends itself to mathematics. A trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, all the laws of physics applied. But at the moment of creation, none of them did. In that sense, it was a "supernatural" event. At the instant of the Big Bang, when all matter in the Universe was compressed into an infinity, the laws of nature did not apply.

The concept of a singularity is problematic for science; hence, its name. But, then, so is the concept of "nothing." Surely it means the absence of any thing. But must it not also mean the lack of any presence whatsoever? Must it not mean the absence of time, of space, of dimension, of number, of possibility? So, we have not one inexplicable mystery, but two: the singularity, and nothingness.

How similar the scientific account is to the Old Testament:

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light."

Genesis holds that the Universe began in a flash of energy, through a single, instantaneous, supernatural event. So, does science.

Section Three. Existential

A. The Concept of God as Being

The seventeenth century philosopher Benedict de Spinoza made the following argument: 1) whatever came first must have been conceived through itself; what else could have created it? 2) anything conceived through itself must in essence involve Being; that is, its nature is _to be_ ; 3) any substance whose essence is Being can never not be.

In other words, insofar as God came first and then created everything else, God must be existence per se. Everything else comes into and goes out of existence. Everything we know of in our Universe makes this transition. People are born and die, as do animals and plants. Likewise, for inanimate objects like rocks and dirt, which initially form and eventually disperse. But also, for great celestial entities, such as planets, and stars, and galaxies. Whatever they are, they assumed that form at a point in time. And at a later point in time, they will lose that form, and, therefore, cease to be.

But what of the _underlying substance_ from which everything is formed? What of existence itself? And what of an Entity that is existence itself? Can "being" per se ever not be? Of course not. By definition, it's nature is to exist. Of all things in the Universe, being alone can never not be.

B. Evidence of God as Being

The law of the conservation of matter and energy stems from the work of Lavoisier, Newton, and Einstein. It holds that matter and energy may be converted into different forms, but that the total always remains the same. This is the first law of thermodynamics: "...energy is never created or destroyed." (Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, 97).

For example, in rust, oxygen is removed from the atmosphere, but an exactly equal amount is added to the metal where the oxidation is formed. In a car, heat energy is converted into work energy. And in e=mc2 Einstein described how matter can be converted into an equivalent amount of energy (and vice versa). The basic substance of the Universe, however, endures, regardless of its form. This scientific conclusion is consistent with Spinoza's thesis. There is an underlying substance. It can never not be. It's essence, therefore, its nature, is existence. From it springs everything else. That is Spinoza's argument for God.

Section Four. Eternal

A. The Concept of God as Eternal

If God is omnipotent, then everything past, present, and future lies within His power. There can be no period of time during which God's power has not applied or will not apply. That is one reason God must be eternal. In addition, if God is Being, then there can be no form of existence in which God does not reside. Therefore, God must endure for all existence. Finally, both Aristotle and Spinoza advanced the argument that God, per se, does not change. He is the "unmoved" mover. He is perfection. For that reason, He alone cannot evolve, or grow, or diminish, or die. Being unchanging, He must be eternal.

B. Evidence for God as Eternal

The evidence is the same as the evidence for God as being. If the basic substance can never be created or destroyed, and if God is that substance, then He must exist forever.

Relativity

Einstein gives us further proof for an eternal being. He tells us that space and time are relative. For an astronaut hurtling through space, time moves more slowly relative to someone living on Earth, so that when the astronaut returns home, he is actually somewhat younger than his contemporaries. He has lived on a different timescale than the rest of us. In a sense, the second hand on our watch has moved twice every time the second hand on his watch moves once.

This is what Einstein realized in his special theory of relativity. It is based on the simple fact that for all observers the speed of light always remains the same. Now, if you throw a ball from a standing position, that speed will seem different to you than if you throw it and then run after it. Relative to you, the speed may be, say 10 miles an hour, when you're standing still. But if you yourself can run at 11 miles an hour, then, relative to you, the ball's speed away from you can seem to slow down to zero, and you might even catch up to it.

That logic does not apply, however, to the speed of light. If you turn on a lamp while standing still, you will calculate the speed of light going away from you to be 186,000 miles per second. On the other hand, if you turn on the lamp and then run in the direction of the beam, your calculation of how fast the light is moving away from you will still remain 186,000 miles per second! Unlike the speed of the ball relative to you, the speed of light relative to you will not change.

How is this possible? The speed of light is distance divided by time, or c = d/t. If one side of the equation is constant, then, the other side of the equation must vary. If the speed of light, "c," is constant, then distance and time must vary. And in the case of the person running after a beam of light, his time slows down the faster he goes. By the same token, his distance contracts. So, for him he's travelling a _shorter time_ over a _smaller distance_. Thus, relative to him, the speed of light will always seem the same.

If an astronaut could travel at 99.5% of the speed of light, his time would slow down so much, he would age so slowly, he would be ten times younger than those whom he left behind on Earth. Supposing he were launched into space as an infant, then, at 60 years old, he would return to a home planet that had aged 600 years. In other words, he could leave Earth in 2010 and return within his lifetime to a planet in the year 2610. In that sense, he could travel into the future. If he traveled at the exact speed of light, the second hand on his watch would stop altogether (Gardner 39), so that upon his return even centuries later, generations would have died and been born, while he would not have aged a day.

The Ultimate View of Time

For an individual riding on a beam of light, time stands still. The second hand on his watch is stopped. Movement is instantaneous. If time stands still, then the time it takes to go from one point to another, even from one end of the Universe to the other is immediate. Although the Universe spans 93 billion light years, which means 93 billion times 6 trillion miles, that incomprehensible distance would seem like no distance at all. From his perspective, he arrives the instant he leaves.

From the perspective of the traveler on a beam of light, even the greatest times and the greatest distances are obliterated. Even hundreds of billions of light years seem like here and now. Such a traveler is infinite and eternal. All time and all space are present before him in the instant. The perspective of the time traveler is the same as the perspective of a photon, a particle of light. For a photon, time doesn't pass, and space doesn't exist.

"... in the Universe of photons...there is no 'then' or 'there,' only 'here' and 'now,' with no 'elsewhere' or any 'other' moment except the present one" (chongonation). There is no before and after. So, when we view light from events billions of light years into the past, in light terms, these events are happening _now_.

We humans may observe the photon moving through space over time. We humans, using our Earth-bound watches, may clock the photon at 186,000 miles per second, as it spans trillions of miles of space. But for the photon itself, if it could think, time stands still. From the perspective of relativity, that is the ultimate and most extreme viewpoint within the Universe. It is the limit of the spacetime continuum. On Earth, for us time moves normally. For the astronaut, hurtling through the Cosmos, time slows down. But for the photon time stops altogether. The photon sees eternity in an instant. And so would God. From science, from physics, we know such a viewpoint exists. It is the viewpoint of pure energy, the underlying substance of everything in the Universe.

The Block Universe Concept

The "Block Universe" is a concept in physics that says all space and all time are always present. It is based on Einstein's concept of spacetime, in which time is like a fourth dimension of space. Imagine a house with many rooms. Each room represents a different moment in time. An individual would experience moving from one room to the next as the passage of time. But an observer watching from the outside would see all the rooms at once. The house represents the Universe as a four dimensional "block," in which _any time could be now_ (Stannard 209).

Einstein called the distinction between past, present, and future, "a stubbornly persistent illusion" (Brainyquotes). That would be God's perspective; it is an eternal perspective, and Einstein has demonstrated it exists. He has given us evidence for a divine point of view.

What about Prayer

On the other hand, if everything that will be already exists, then what about prayer? Are we wasting our time when we pray to God? No. Prayer counts, since "future" outcomes may already be linked to our prayers asking for them (Stannard 213). And this is also true for free will. Even if the future were to exist now, from the perspective of spacetime as a whole, cause and effect are not an illusion. The link between cause and effect is real.

What physicists are talking about when they refer to the "block Universe," is a difference in perspective. From a human perspective, the passage of time takes place. It is a feature of our conscious experience. But from a God-like perspective of the Universe as a whole, all time is now. All time is eternal. God is eternal. And what we consider the end can be present at what we consider the beginning.

Conclusion

Our Universe is bound by two limits - ultimate gravity and ultimate speed. Spacetime exists at all points within these limits. But spacetime is entirely bounded and contained within these extremes: on the one hand, the unyielding pull of black hole gravity; and on the other hand, the insurmountable push of light speed. Future scientists may, and probably will, discover they are not just "equivalent," as Einstein said, but one in the same, one all-encompassing force. In the meantime, we know this: in either case, time and space collapse; in either case, eternity is real.

Section Five. Ubiquitous

A. The Concept of God as Everywhere

God exists not only always, but everywhere. The logic is the same in both cases. If God is omnipotent, there can be no time, or no place where He is not present. This is especially true in the absence of determinism. That is, if everything that happens, down to the slightest fluctuation of quarks and electrons, were pre-determined from the instant of creation, then God's omnipotence would operate through His design. Then, because His design is ubiquitous, we would say that the issue isn't God, per se, but rather His influence. And His influence would be everywhere.

But if the Universe is _not_ pre-ordained, if quarks and electrons and human beings are apt to veer off into unexpected paths, then God Himself, and not just His influence, must be everywhere. Otherwise, things could happen beyond His involvement. And then, He would not be omnipotent.

To put it another way, when I pray to God, it shouldn't matter where I am. Wherever I am, in whatever corner of the Earth or the Universe, my prayers are spoken, God will hear me and God will answer me. Whether I am kneeling in a church, or trapped in a coal mine thousands of feet below the surface should be irrelevant. There can be no place God has forsaken. Furthermore, if God is Being, then He must be everywhere. Everything that is, is God.

As I mentioned earlier, this notion that, in effect, God is the Universe and the Universe is God is also what Deists believe. So, it is not exactly new. But it is problematic. For one thing, what about Hitler? Was Hitler God? Or, Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Attila the Hun, or Nero and Caligula? If the Universe is God and everything and everyone in the Universe is part of God, then doesn't that include the worst sort of suffering and the vilest form of evil?

Well, first off, the simplest answer is "I don't know." That being said, however, let's examine the question further. To say that everything in the Universe is part of God, and that God is in everything everywhere, is certainly not the same as saying everything is God. A forest is composed of many trees, but not every tree is a forest. My body is composed of many cells, but not every cell in my body is me. The whole is not only greater than, but distinctly different from any one of its parts.

It is a commonplace to observe that God's ways and God's purposes surpass our understanding. It is not necessary or ever possible to "justify God's ways to man." Moreover, God's perspective and man's perspective must be fundamentally different from each other. This is not to say that man's perspective is wrong. On the contrary. We are perfectly justified in abhorring evil and the people who do it. Just as we would be perfectly correct to isolate a particular branch of the tree and call it defective. But the view of each particular branch and the view of the tree as a whole are different, and require different standards by which to be judged.

B. Evidence for God as Everywhere

The Universe Is All the Same

There is no need to belabor this point. If everything that is, is of God, then God is everywhere by definition. Furthermore, we know from astronomy, that the Universe looks pretty much the same in all directions. The basic elements of hydrogen and helium, and therefore their basic components of electrons and quarks, exist in all parts of the Cosmos. The same is true for the basic structures of galaxies and nebula, of solar systems and planets. The basic laws of gravity and electromagnetism govern everywhere. There is no corner, no niche within the observable Universe that appears strikingly different in any of its fundamentals. If God existed only in some places but not in others, we would certainly expect to encounter a dramatic contrast between those places. And we don't.

The argument that God is everywhere is synonymous with the argument that God is everything. And this, in turn, implies that everything is one thing. To scientists that one thing is pure energy. To us civilians, when we look out into the Cosmos, we see diversity. We see a distinction between matter and energy, between things that are solid and things that are without substance - for example, the flower and the light which it feeds on. Moreover, we see different forms of matter and different forms of energy.

Everything Is One Thing

On closer inspection, however, what we see as different things turn out to be different forms - or avatars - of one thing. For example, it's not just that matter and energy can be converted into each other. Matter actually _is_ energy, only in a different form. As Michael Brooks states, "there is no such thing as a solid" (48). Examine closely any material thing - a piece of wood, a rock, a human - down to its constituent parts: molecules and atoms. Now, look deeper into the atom and almost all of it is empty space; the atomic nucleus is like the size of a fly within the cathedral of the atom as a whole. It has been compared to a "gnat within Albert Hall" (52). And even within the nucleus, at least 99% of its weight comes from the force of mass-less energy particles, the gluons holding quarks and protons together. Everything that appears solid reduces to something without substance. So, even solid seeming matter basically is energy, "the baseless fabric" that "dreams are made on." That energy is ubiquitous.

Furthermore, if the distinction between mass and energy is illusory, then so is the distinction among different forms of energy. Over time we have come to learn that electricity and magnetism are the same; that electro-magnetism and the so-called weak force were also once the same, the "electro-weak force"; and, before that, the strong force most likely was included. Gravity is different because it is an aspect of mass. Any object with a large mass-energy warps the spacetime around it. Gravity is the warping that results.

At the extremes of mass and energy, time stands still. Between black holes, at one extreme, and light, at the other, time and space occur. The one is pure mass and the other is pure energy. In one sense, they are opposites. Light, in the form of "positive energy" travels at 300 km/second. The negative gravitational energy of black holes, on the other hand, exactly cancels out the positive energy of light to such an extent that within a black hole, light cannot move at all. Yet, the two extremes are, in another sense, equivalent. Within the context of the black hole, and within the context of the speed of light, time and space no longer exist. Time stops. Space collapses. Gravity becomes infinite.

Indeed, the gravity of mass and the gravity of acceleration are the same, so that an astronaut standing on Earth could not tell the difference from an astronaut accelerating into outer space. And it was this "equivalence principle" that lead Einstein to conclude that mass and energy are equal. And the link between mass and energy lies in the constancy of the speed of light. No matter what, it remains the same.

The Universe may not have a spatial boundary. You can travel as far as you want in any direction and never encounter an "edge." Instead, wherever you go, you always seem to be in the middle. But the Universe does have a physical boundary, at the extremes of gravity and light. Go forward at the speed of light, time stops and space collapses. Go backwards against the speed of light, into the singularity of a black hole, time stops and space collapses. All of reality exists between these two extremes. In that sense, the Universe is not infinite. It is a very well bounded _individual_. And that individual is ubiquitous.

Entanglement

Related to the question of ubiquity is one of the most puzzling enigmas of physics, namely "entanglement." Two particles, for example electrons, that originally interacted in some way, subsequently behave as mirror images of each other. Even if they wind up at opposite ends of the Universe, if particle A is observed to be "X," particle B will always be reverse X. If particle A then changes from X to Y, particle B will instantaneously become reverse Y. And this holds true no matter how far apart the two particles are, even if the distance is so vast, there is no possibility of them communicating with each other. How can this be? In physics, it is referred to as the "EPR paradox," after Einstein and two of his colleagues, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. Einstein couldn't explain it. He called it "spooky action at a distance." But if everything were one thing - that is, if everything were God - and if all time were one time - namely, now - then the explanation would be simple. The two seemingly separate and distant particles were really only one.

It is as if you crossed a room from one door to another and discovered that both doors were the same. You ended up exactly where you began. The room in between was a sort of illusion, a "baseless fabric." The space from one door to the next, and the time it took you to get across were just something you imagined. So, it may be with the Universe we inhabit. Beneath the surface appearance of diverse shapes and forms unfolding over time and space, it may be there is only one thing. There is only here. And there is only now.

Conclusion of Part I

This concludes Part I. I am attempting to define what we mean by the term "God." Logically, I have argued, the defining features of God must include that He is omnipotent, omnificent, existential, eternal and ubiquitous. The lynchpin is omnipotent. Anything less simply would not be God. From omnipotent, we derive omnificent, existential, eternal and ubiquitous. These aspects of God are all logical and necessary extensions of omnipotence.

The scientific basis for these conclusions are: all matter and energy in the Universe is reducible to a single underlying substance; that substance is reducible to a single underlying force; that force was born is a single underlying, "supernatural" moment of creation. The basic substance of the Universe can never be created or destroyed. The perspective of that substance is eternal. The location of that substance is everywhere.

Notice that I have not included in my argument that God is: transcendent, spiritual, or unobservable. On the contrary, as I will contend in Part II, God is immanent, material, and very observable. Following Spinoza, if God is the basic substance of the Universe from which everything else is formed and of which everything else consists, He exists in everything we see and He is manifest everywhere we look. To counter Nielsen, then, we _can_ reference God. We can point to Him. He is what is. Nor is it necessary to suggest that He is something apart from what is, something transcendent, or "spiritual." It is unnecessary to define God as unobservable by definition, as well as in fact. Omnipotence doesn't require it. Nor do the qualities of omnificent, existential, eternal or ubiquitous.

The notion of "spirit," in particular, arises from what I consider a false premise. First, it is false because there's no empirical foundation for such a substance as "spirit." Supposedly, it's stuff that's unobservable, and therefore perversely impossible to prove. But the concept of spirit emanates from the argument that if God were "material," then He could change, or be diminished, or cease to exist. Material things like dirt and people and planets do undergo these sorts of transformations. God, being perfect, must not. So, the argument goes, God cannot be material.

But if God were the basic substance of which all material things are formed, then even though those forms do shift and change and eventually decay, the substance from which they are formed need not. In effect, that is what the law of the conservation of matter and energy tells us. The basic substance stays the same.

The word "spirit" comes from the Latin "spiritus, "or breath. It is the essential thing separating the living from the dead. For that reason, the spirit was thought to contain our intelligence, consciousness, and sentience. Breath and spirit are also equated with each other in the Greek "pneuma," the Sanskrit "Atman," the Hebrew "nephesh," and the Egyptian "ka." Ancient Egyptians believed that ka, the life force, was breathed into each person at birth by the god Heket, or Meskhenet. At death, the ka leaves the body, but it endures.

Likewise, ancient Chinese worshipped the still vital spirits of their dead ancestors. And in Hinduism of ancient India the highest plain of existence was thought to be the Brahman, the great spirit, which dwelled in each individual in the form of the Atman, the personal soul. All major religions believed and still believe in this duality of existence. The concept of spirit as an invisible, non-material substance, is nearly universal, and it appears to be based on the very observable fact that it is indeed something invisible and apparently immaterial - breath - that is the essence of our life. Today, however, we know that breath is both quite observable and quite material. So, it makes no sense to think of it as a separate form of substance.

Today, the scientific counterpart to the duality of matter and spirit is the distinction between matter and energy. But even though energy seems insubstantial, it can still be observed empirically. Certainly, we can see light. We can feel heat. We can get shocked by electricity, drawn by magnetism, and pulled down by gravity. Moreover, with sophisticated tools such as the electron microscope and the particle accelerator, we can observe force carrying particles such as electrons and photons. So, even energy is very much a part of the material world.

Now that we know so much about energy, there is no longer a need for the concept of "spirit." The ancients were right. There is something more to the Cosmos than just material stuff. There are forces that we cannot easily see. These forces are indeed fundamental in shaping our lives. Moreover, everything substantial and material that we observe in the world comes from this non-substantial source, and will likely convert to it in the end. Whether the Universe began in a burst of pure heat and light, or in tiny vibrating energy "strings," all existence comes from it. But energy is not something apart from and different than the material world. It is part of it. And it can be observed.

If we accept that God can be material, and not some chimerical alternative to the material called the "spiritual," then there's no need for God to be "transcendent." That notion only comes into play in a dualistic ontology. Only if we believe in a "spirit" world, can we make the claim that something "transcends" the material. So, the definitions for God advanced thus far, avoid the two elements of incoherence that Nielsen objects to. Both empirically and logically, when we use the term "God," we can have a point of reference.

I have also backed up my logic with scientific proof. It is the weight of modern day science, mainstream science, that an omnipotent force does exist, manifested – "supernaturally" - in the Big Bang; that it is from this force all other matter and energy in the Universe derive; that this force underlies all existence; and that it can never be destroyed.

Some 14 billion years ago, at Planck time, the Universe was born. At that moment, the Universe did not appear as a vast collection of disparate entities, separated from each other by unimaginable distances. Rather, it could be seen as a single, small, coherent individual. It was in its infancy. As it grew, it diversified, taking a variety of different forms. Some of those forms developed into you and me. But even as we appear to be quite different from each other, and quite separated, it is well to remember that we are all part of the same thing. _We are all extensions of one individual_.

That individual, the Universe, is omnipotent, omnificent, existential, ubiquitous, and eternal. This is true by definition. By the same token, we might ask, where do we find a being or an entity that possesses all of these features? Where do we find someone or something that is omnipotent, omnificent, existential, ubiquitous, and eternal? And the answer is both obvious and undeniable – it is the Universe. Only the Universe. That is not a theory. It's a fact.

There is, however, a problem with this definition, as far as it goes. The problem is that it equates God with a force of nature. And if we were to stop at this point, we would have reduced God to a natural phenomenon. There would be no disagreement between religion and science as to His existence, because we would have equated the definition of God to the laws of physics: "God = Nature." Almost all religions that worship God, however, view Him as something more. And it is this further, more essential aspect of God which Part II will now explore.
PART II. OMNISCIENCE

Now we arrive at the great divide between major world religions. In Judaism and its offshoots, Christianity and Islam, God is viewed as an intelligent Being. The God who speaks to Abraham and Isaac, who argues with Jonah, who contends with Job, who enters the body of Christ, and who leads Mohammed has a personality. He may be invisible. He may even be entirely "spiritual" and non-material, but He is always a Being who communicates, reasons, determines, wills, and expresses awareness. He is, in effect, a person. But this is not universally the case.

A major difference between religions of the West and the East is whether God is a personal Being or a "transcendent Energy" (O'Malley 6). This distinction, however, masks and confuses a deeper divide concerning whether God is or is not intelligent.

The popular view of God in the Western tradition of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the Jupiter-like Being whom early converts to Christianity in the Roman world were accustomed to worshipping. The iconic image of the Sistine Chapel with white beard, white hair, and flowing white robe, surrounded by his community of quasi-human cherubs and angels and seraphim, is how the likeness of God is most often depicted. It is also what consciously or unconsciously comes to mind when many of us think of Him. This is the popular view. Yet, formally, all the major Western religions deny this view. In Judaism God is never seen or described. He is not even named. To Moses, God calls Himself simply "I am that I am." Islam goes even further, considering any attempt to personify the Deity in an image, a painting, a statue as blasphemy. Even in Christianity, where most of our popular images come from, nowhere in the New Testament is God Himself described.

Yet, in all three religions God speaks. He communicates either invisibly or in disguise with humans and angels, with Adam and Eve, with Noah and Jonah and Job, with Abraham and Moses and Mohammed and Jesus. He expresses plans and intentions and even emotions, unleashing his "wrath" upon Sodom and Gomorrah, and Baal-worshiping Israelites, and recalcitrant Egyptians. So, even invisible and disembodied and "transcendent," God remains a particular Character with his own consciousness and perspective. Within the orthodoxies of the three Western religions, God may not actually look like a person - or like anything at all. He may not be confined to any time or space. But He is indisputably a personal Being, all the same.

Eastern religions tell a very different story. In Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, it actually doesn't make sense to refer to "a God." Hinduism, the earliest of the three, and, indeed of all present-day world religions, dating back over six thousand years, is, on the one hand, polytheistic. It encompasses many gods, including Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, plus their countless avatars and personifications. We are familiar with their multiple-armed, many-headed, varied-countenance likenesses. At the theocratic level, however, beyond and above the pantheon of Hindu gods is something which is not a god, the "Brahman," the One. And the Brahman is "not a person but rather the essence of the world soul within all things" (87). The Brahman doesn't act or will or think. The Brahman simply is.

The "Atman" is the personal spirit, counterpart of the Brahman within every individual. It is the Brahman within each one of us. The Hindu goal of life is to eventually break free from the cycle of continuous reincarnations and release the Atman into the Brahman, thus becoming one with the world soul.

Buddhism arose some 2500 years ago as a refinement of Hinduism, retaining the core concepts of Brahman and Atman, but jettisoning the notion of gods. There are no deities whatsoever in Buddhism. As with Hinduism, there is only the transcendent spiritual force. And the goal of existence is to unite with it. Thus, one achieves "nirvana." To do so is to realize a "bliss uncontaminated by attachment of dependence" (97).

Confucianism is actually more philosophy than religion, concerning itself rather with proper comportment in this world than with any goings-on in the spirit realm. To the extent that Confucius addresses the spiritual, he references "Heaven" as a divine moral order, not a divine individual. The duty of every person is to reflect that higher order of propriety within his own life.

This brief overview of the divide in religious views between East and West is meant to bring into question the whole issue of intelligence. As we see in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, it is entirely conceivable to have a religion without a personal God. It is entirely possible to posit, instead, a transcendent, spiritual force, one which is both eternal and, if not exactly omnipotent, certainly more real and enduring and perfect than any of the ephemeral realities we mortals embody. The ultimate source of worship and solace in the East is not a person or a being, and basically not an intelligent, conscious, or willful agent at all.

To ask the question, then, "is there a God," goes beyond the issue of whether divine belief per se is valid; beyond the question of material versus spiritual; and even beyond the concept of an ultimate "force." One can have a religion without an intelligent Being at its apex. So, now we need to move beyond the question of omnipotence and everything it entails. We now need to ask about _intelligence_. Must that also be a defining feature of our God. Plainly put: Is the ultimate force in the Universe a conscious Being or not?

Section One. Purposeful

A. The Concept of God's Will

Is Western religion simply anthropomorphizing nature? Is it giving the Cosmos a human face to make it more accessible to us? Is it just pretense that the Universe is governed by an intentional order, instead of by forces as blind, thoughtless, and uncaring as an avalanche?

In Part II, I shall argue that God is not just a force, but an intelligence; that His intelligence is logically implied by His omnipotence; and that from His intelligence, certain additional aspects of His conscious mind logically flow.

God cannot be all powerful without possessing will. The elemental forces of nature, such as electromagnetism and gravity, account for all movement, all actions, all change in the Universe. They are the physical forces that govern the material realm. This is true for the microscopic, such as the orbiting of electrons around a nucleus, as well as for the massive, such as the collapse of giant stars into black holes. Yet, omnipotence implies not just force, but _controlled_ force. Power is the ability to shape events according to one's will. Thus, there are two critical elements involved - ability and will. In Part I, we focused only on ability. But without will, there is no power. There is no omnipotence. A hammer, per se, does not have power. The person who wields it does. A hammer, per se, is indeed powerless. It has no say over what it does. It is an inanimate object, a mere tool in the hands of whoever possesses it. It is a means to an end. But the ends are not its own. An omnipotent God, by definition, must exercise all forces of the Universe to serve His will.

B. Evidence for God's Will

The Intelligent Design Argument

Did God create the Universe and all the life it contains, or did it only evolve according to the mechanical and unthinking laws of physics and biology? That is the dichotomy we seem to face between religion and science. The term "intelligent design" (ID) has been advanced in recent times to express the religious view. Opposing the scientific theory of evolution, proponents of intelligent design claim that evolutionists see the Universe as undirected, random, and haphazard. They charge that science views the development of life as an accident. Evolution is wrong, they claim, because it is manifestly obvious that the Universe is ordered, and therefore planned. They, the intelligent design proponents, literally believe that human life did not evolve, but rather was created, as is, on the sixth day by God.

In my view, this is a false dichotomy. The choices are not God versus randomness. Indeed, the mechanisms of evolution appear to be anything but random or accidental. The laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are very strict and rigorous. Is it the position of the IDers that physics, chemistry, biology are irrelevant? Do they think gravity is inconsequential? And what about DNA, the replication of cells, meiosis and mitosis? Unimportant? Yet, it is manifestly obvious to anyone with a microscope that there are consistent, persistent, and observable processes governing our life. To state otherwise is to ignore science, to ignore the evidence of our senses, and to interpose a sort of magical and totally unprovable explanation for how things work. It's as if someone were to turn to an astrologist, rather than an auto repair shop, to get his car fixed.

Intelligent design replaces knowledge with ignorance, fact with wishful thinking, science with superstition. This must be of great comfort to people who lack either the patience or the capacity to understand how our world actually functions, which is much more awe inspiring than the cheap magic act which the so-called IDers would like to foist upon a credulous public.

For example, let's take a close up view of one of the true miracles of our Universe. Our cells are the building blocks of life. A microscopic view of the cell reveals an incredibly complex and efficient, factory-like assembly line of activity with a multitude of highly specialized elements working in tight coordination. The activity inside the cell is routine. Indeed, choose any one of the billions of cells in one human being and compare it to one cell in any of the other six billion humans on the planet and you will see _the exact same processes_ at work. Compare it to a single cell in any of the trillions of living species on Earth and you will find that the functions are virtually identical. Science has given us this insight into our biology, and the science is indisputably correct.

And it's not by magic. Take a closer look. Each of the cells in our body is one millionth of an inch in diameter. Within this tiny space is a nucleus, and within that nucleus is our DNA, the deoxyribonucleic acid that contains the blueprint for our body. The "double helix," or twisted string structure of DNA contains instructions for our assembly. Each set of DNA has six billion "nucleotides," which are the molecular letters which spell out the words for our instructions. The basic alphabet is actually quite simple consisting of only four primary nucleotide letters: A, C, T, and G (adenine, cytosine, thiamine, and guanine), repeated six billion times in different combinations. This is enough letters to fill 4000 books of 500 pages each. Every single cell in our bodies contains these 4000 books. Does that sound random or haphazard?

These 4000 books of six billion letters are divided into sentences called genes. Each gene contains exact instructions for building one of the many proteins which our body needs. Every three letters in the gene spell a biological word, such as AAG, TAT, or CGA. Each word stands for an amino acid. Proteins are made up of amino acids. The four nucleotide letters in our DNA - A, C, T, G - can combine with each other to form 65 different three letter words, or "codons." Each word represents one of twenty amino acids. These twenty amino acids, in differing combinations, create the 100,000 different types of proteins that constitute our bones, blood, muscles, and organs.

A special category of proteins is "enzymes," whose only function is to help build other proteins. For example, consider the enzyme RNAp (ribonucleic acid polymerase). RNAp has a very specialized job. It travels along the DNA until it recognizes two words, TAT-AAT. This signals the RNAp that a gene begins 30 letters ahead. In combination with other enzymes called transcription factors (TFs), the RNAp locates the beginning of the gene, and begins to unwind and separate the two intertwined strands of DNA at that point. The RNAp then moves along the DNA molecule and "reads" it letter by letter. For each letter, the RNAp provides a complimentary letter. A and T are complimentary letters, as are C and G. So, a string of nucleotides that spelled out the letters CGGTAA would result in the complimentary string GCCATT, for example. The RNAp moves along the strand of DNA, reading each letter and creating a complimentary string. The new, mirror image string is called messenger RNA (mRNA).

The RNAp stops transcribing when it encounters a stretch of multiple A's (AAAAAA). The original DNA then rewinds itself, after the RNAp has passed. In the meantime, other specialized enzymes perform an editing function to ensure the RNAp has not made any mistakes. For example, "mismatch repair" enzymes follow the RNAp and compare each letter on the mRNA to each letter on the DNA to make sure they're complimentary. For instance, if a C has accidentally been paired with a T, the repair enzyme will make the proper correction. Another enzyme called DNA photolyase detects and repairs damage from ultra-violet light.

The newly created strand of mRNA serves as the template for building protein. Why does the body need the mRNA middle man, when it could just as easily build the protein directly from the original DNA? Because mRNA makes the process more efficient. The body can use the single blueprint in the DNA's gene to spin off multiple strands of mRNA. These strands of RNA, in turn, can all be building the same protein simultaneously. The mRNA can work hundreds of times faster than the DNA alone. Such is the ingenious efficiency of genetic production.

There is nothing "accidental" about this process. Quite the contrary. What we see upon close inspection is exactly the opposite of "accident." We see a process that is more efficient, less error prone, more specialized, more complex, and more tightly organized than any factory produced by man.

Confronted with this irrefutable evidence of how life actually works at the microscopic level, some so-called "intelligent design" advocates would concede that life is indeed based on the microbiology described above. But then they would claim that God created DNA when He zapped Adam into the Garden of Eden. So, God didn't simply create man. Rather, he created man plus the underlying biology that sustains man. But this revised position still doesn't wash.

To understand genetics at the molecular level, we must delve into the realm of chemistry, physics, and the fundamental forces of nature causing the components of DNA to behave the way they do.

DNA molecules are made up of elements, such as carbon and oxygen. These elements do not just miraculously appear out of nowhere. They are, originally, the product of stars. Stars burn hydrogen, and in the process, convert hydrogen atoms into helium. Hydrogen is the simplest element because it contains a single proton in its nucleus. Helium is the next simplest, because it contains two. As stars run out of hydrogen, they then burn the resulting helium, whose atoms are fused to form additional elements, such as carbon. Carbon's nucleus contains 6 protons, formed from the fusion of three helium nuclei. Add one more helium nucleus, and you get oxygen, with an 8-proton nucleus. With C, He, and O, even heavier elements result from the intense energy when a collapsing star explodes.

One unique feature of the carbon atom is that its nucleus is circled by only four electrons. This is only half the number of electrons it needs to fill its outer shell. Thus, carbon is attracted to other elements, such as oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, in order to acquire electrons. This makes the carbon atom a sort of universal Velcro. The four carbon electrons attract other atoms at exactly four points around itself, which is very useful for forming the backbone of complex molecular chains. These chains are particularly likely to develop within a fluid medium, such as water, where atoms are more highly concentrated and bump into each other more often. Thus, the first single celled life form on Earth contained a carbon-based DNA molecule which likely assembled itself in the ocean.

Some might argue that the appearance of this single celled life form was "chance." But that would be wrong. Getting two sixes in a roll of dice is chance. But if both the dice are loaded - very loaded - then, it's not chance at all. It's destiny. The atoms that make up our bodies are, in fact, heavily loaded in favor of life. You start with an exploding star. And all stars are fated either to explode or burn out. The products of that explosion are basic elements, one of which is carbon, which, because of its structure, acts like a magnet to other elements. Much of life, as we know it, is carbon based, because carbon can form the nexus for very complex molecules, such as proteins. Place these elements in a liquid medium, where they are constantly bumping into each other, and complex molecules begin to form. That's not chance.

Various experiments have demonstrated how life can form, given the right conditions. That is, when the dice are loaded. In terrestrial environments, as seemingly inhospitable as the Arctic Circle, at one extreme, and the Atacama Desert of Chile, at the other extreme, primitive bacteria have been discovered. On Earth single celled life began very early, perhaps 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. It thrived in methane and under extreme heat. After the subsidence of meteor bombardments - around 3.5 billion years ago - these life forms emerged from their hiding places underground and inside the seas, into the sunlight, which they were able to capture and employ as a new source of energy, through photosynthesis. One of the waste gases of photosynthesis is oxygen, which gradually accumulated in the atmosphere. Originally only 1% of Earth's air 3.5 billion years ago, it rose to 21% by 600 million years ago. This set the stage for the animal life that followed. So, life is not an accident. It is the logical and highly probable result of a series of predictable events.

But let's go back further still. Let's turn back time 14 billion years. At 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, time begins. This infinitesimally brief period is called "Planck time," after the German physicist Max Planck. It refers to the number one divided by another number 1 plus 43 zeroes, that is \- 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

This is the shortest amount of time intelligible, meaning we can't go back any further. Space and time break down before that, and quantum effects overwhelm everything. At Planck time, the temperature of the Universe measured 1032 degrees Kelvin. That is, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 degrees. At this temperature, there was only one force in the Universe. In the briefest lapse of time, however, at 10-10 seconds, which is 1/10,000,000,000 of a second, the Universe had cooled enough, so that the single force split up and became four separate forces. These are gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force.

Gravity is what causes large objects to attract each other. It's what makes apples fall from trees, keeps Earth rotating around the sun, and holds our galaxy together. Electromagnetism is why a positive charge and a negative charge attract each other, or when two positives or two negatives repel each other. It's what causes particles to coalesce into atoms and atoms into molecules. The strong force is what binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom, despite the repulsion of positively charged protons toward each other. The weak force is what causes quarks, the most basic of particles, to change from one type to another. This seemingly esoteric transformation is what makes it possible for the sun to burn.

After the Big Bang, the electromagnetic force caused the formation of atoms of hydrogen, the simplest and oldest element with only one positively charged proton and one negatively charged electron. Gravity caused these hydrogen atoms to cluster together into clouds, and then to coalesce further into stars. The rest of the story we have already discussed.

In the entire 14-billion-year history of the Universe, where is the accident? The basic forces and particles of the Big Bang foreordained the appearance of atoms, stars, galaxies, elements, molecules, DNA, and life. There is nothing random or haphazard about it. Evolution was not an accident. Proponents of intelligent design rely on ignorance and credulity about physics, chemistry, biology, and the other sciences. Certainly, a lightning bolt must seem like a magical thing to people who know nothing about physics. Ignorance is what IDers most count on. Otherwise, what is their position - that the forces of nature are irrelevant? that gravity is irrelevant? that electrons and protons are irrelevant? that DNA is irrelevant? that the astounding complexity of the human cell is irrelevant?

Science and God's Will

As I've said, it is a false dichotomy to claim that the Universe was caused either by God or by accident. The evolution of the Universe and the evolution of human life was no accident. It obeyed the laws of nature. All the evidence of our senses points to the conclusion that the Universe is governed by these laws. Great thinkers and careful observers, such as Lavoisier, Newton, Maxwell, Rutherford, Einstein, Planck, Watson and Crick, and - yes - Charles Darwin have uncovered some of these laws. In the future, we will learn more. Simply by applying the laws we already know, however, we can understand and extrapolate much of the evolution of the Universe over the past 14 billion years.

But where did the laws themselves come from? For that we have no scientific explanation. Moreover, we are told we never will. To the instant of the Big Bang, to the moment of creation before Planck time at 10-43 of a second, we cannot go. All we know is: natural laws did not apply. Therefore, the supernatural did. The laws that emerged from this supernatural phenomenon are themselves the best evidence we have of God's will. These laws are logical, consistent, and directed. That is, they have the effect of producing very specific results. In that sense, they are purposeful. As Einstein himself stated, it is by studying the laws of the Universe that we come to understand God's intent.

The supernatural created the natural, and the natural created us. That is where the evidence points. And this concept of creation, the notion of God not as a micro-manager of the twists and turns of everyday events, but rather as the Great Architect Who conceived all the fundamental principles and elements that shaped the Universe inexorably for billions of years is consistent with the definition of Divine will. This notion evokes Aristotle's idea of the Unmoved Mover; a Being Whose essential role is genesis. The rest - the history that evolved from Planck time forward - has been an unfolding of the details.

Moreover, this notion of God is consistent with science. Our job as beings endowed with intelligence and curiosity is to seek to understand the principles that God created, to try to piece together how those laws work, and how they brought about the Universe we live in. The understandings that have emerged are all the more impressive because they do not involve fatuous "intelligent design" shortcuts, no magic tricks. Rather, they portray a breathtaking plan of vastness and complexity. Only in this way, by using the brains God gave us, can we come to grasp God's laws and ultimately, therefore, His will.

Section Two. Omniscient

A. The Concept of God as Omniscient

In the exercise of will, it is imperative that nothing can happen without God knowing about it. If even a single atom could operate in a way that God wasn't aware of or didn't anticipate, then that introduces a flaw - an element of uncertainty into the way the Universe is governed. That element of uncertainty could frustrate or counter God's will, which, in turn would undermine His omnipotence. By definition, God must be omniscient, He must know absolutely everything. Omnipotence requires it.

B. Evidence for God as Omniscient

Knowledge is power. Therefore, omniscience is the basis for omnipotence. But where do we find evidence for omniscience in our Universe? The answer is simple. We find it in ourselves.

Of course, we humans are not ourselves all-knowing. But we are knowing. We are the best evidence available that energy transformed into matter can develop learning, intellect, and thought. This ability has evolved. Single celled organisms, bacteria, and plants do not possess intelligence. Animals do. Some animals, such as monkeys, dogs, dolphins, learn rather well. But no animal approaches humans in our capacity for understanding. As compared to animals, our brain power has made us virtually omnipotent.

Moreover, our ability to learn has evolved. The development of language enabled us to catalogue, retain, and communicate information. With writing and books, and print media, we could disseminate information far and wide. With telegraphs, telephones, radios, televisions, we could transmit sounds and sights at the speed of light. Now, at the beginning of the third millennium A.D., we have cell phones, computers, and the Internet. These amazing technical advances make the grand libraries of the past two thousand years seem quaint. All of the books and all of the literature stored in the Library of Congress can today be reached theoretically anywhere, anytime, by anyone on Earth with access to the World Wide Web. No longer is there even a need for the florid, ostentatious, multi-storied municipal palaces, we call libraries, housing tens of thousands of hard copy books. Now all your need is a PDA.

These advances in knowledge have evolved in a geometric progression. While proto hominids first appeared on Earth some 7 million years ago, apparently it wasn't until that last 50,000 years that language first emerged. It wasn't until 6000 years ago we had writing. The printing press was invented by Guttenberg 600 years ago. The telegraph appeared 200 years ago; the telephone 130 years ago. Radio emerged in the 1920's and television in the 1940's. The personal computer only became commercially available in the 1980's and the Internet in the 1990s. In other words, one of the most stunning advances in human learning only occurred within the last 25 years of our seven-million-year history!

Given the nature and rate of advancement in learning, can anyone doubt the promise of the future? Imagine what inventions will emerge over the next 25 years, the next 100 years, the next thousand, the next million. Imagine where we'll be 5 billion years from now. That's the estimated future lifespan of our solar system.

So, is there evidence of omniscience in our Universe? Yes. That evidence is us. We have the potential for it now, and based on our progress to date, the likelihood of someday achieving that potential is great.

But what does this have to do with God? Humanity as a whole, in our current stage of evolution, is just a tribe of clever animals. But 5 billion years is a very long time. Long enough for us to transform into something quite different than what we are today. Long enough for us to discover other intelligent life in the Universe and advance in unimaginable ways through that encounter. Long enough for the intellect of individuals to blend and increase, as it already has begun to do. Long enough for the rise of a universal intelligence. But how could we possibly ever reach that level if _the Universe itself did not have the capacity for us to do so to begin with_?

Where else do we find evidence for intelligence in the Universe? The answer lies in the laws that govern the Universe. These are expressed with mathematical precision in the equations of thermodynamics, harmonics, electro-magnetism, general and special relativity, and quantum dynamics, to name a few. The fact that the Cosmos obeys an intelligible set of laws, and that these laws apply everywhere, suggests that the Universe is itself intelligent. Even in the case of Brownian motion and the uncertainty principle, the equations of quantum mechanics ultimately resolve even the micro-world into a comprehensible and predictable science.

In conclusion, then, can we say the Universe is intelligent? Can we say it is omniscient? To the extent that it is governed by a set of logical, mathematical equations that apply everywhere and for all time, the answer is yes. To the extent that human beings demonstrably reflect that capacity now and that potential in the future, again, the answer is yes.

Section Three. Conscious

A. The Concept of God as Conscious

Consciousness and Reality

One can view the evolution of the Universe as a process of realization. On the one hand, the Universe is still forming. It is taking shape and developing into what it will become. In that sense, the coalescing of a star out of space dust is a process of realization. On the other hand, however, that process of development and formation is incomplete. Even in the case of a star, what if it is never seen or detected? Who can state that it actually exists? The best we can say is its reality is alleged, but unproven. It may or may not actually be there. Nothing can be said to be real for certain, without validation.

The word "realization" is as much a mental as a physical phenomenon. The dictionary defines realization as "to make real" or "actualize." The word "real" comes from the Latin "res" or thing. And something real is a thing that has a "verifiable existence" (Webster's Dictionary). The word "actual," likewise "connotes that which is demonstrable." Thus, consciousness of existence is inseparable from existence, per se. The entire Universe must not only be, it must be known to be, in order to be real.

This is one reason for a belief in God. The notion of blind forces coming into existence and assembling themselves into various monumental shapes and forms, in the absence of any knowing or thought or awareness, seems both odd and pointless. God is not only the Creator. His is the essential Mind in which the Cosmos is reflected.

The Reality of Schrodinger's Cat

Consider, for example, Schrodinger's cat. Erwin Schrodinger was one of the founders of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century. He and his colleagues studied the physics of such particles as electrons and photons, the smallest and most fundamental components of matter and energy. They concluded that until any particular particle has been measured and observed, it is "meaningless" to talk about its existence (Rae 55). This conclusion has profound implications for Schrodinger's unfortunate feline, as we shall soon see.

Schrodinger's work is based on Werner Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle." Heisenberg said that it is impossible to know both the exact position and the exact momentum of a quantum object such as a photon simultaneously.

Photons can be thought of as either waves or particles. It depends on how they are measured. Measured one way, they appear to be waves; measured another way, particles. Since it is impossible to measure photons both ways simultaneously, they will always appear to be either a wave or a particle, but not both. Photons are fundamental units of energy. Further investigation, however, has led to the same conclusion about the fundamental units of matter, such as electrons and quarks. They can be viewed as either waves or as particles, depending on how they are measured (15).

It follows from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle; we cannot know the properties of any fundamental particle until we have observed it. But that is a question of what we know. Quantum physics, however, goes a step further. Quite aside from what we know, we must conclude that the particle _does not even exist_ until it is measured. Observation, therefore, is critical to reality. Whether something is observed and how it is observed determines what it is.

Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist and one of the founders of quantum mechanics in the early 1900s made the following assertion. Reality is the result of the thing being observed and the instruments we use to observe it. Quantum entities "have no reality" in the absence of measurement, according to Bohr (52).

All this led Schrodinger to devise a thought experiment concerning a cat. Suppose, he said, we have a cat in an opaque box. We can't see inside the box. A pistol is pointed at the imperiled puss. Connected to the pistol is a photon detector. Photons can be said to be either "horizontal" (H) or "vertical" (V). If an H photon emerges from the detector, the pistol goes off and the cat is killed. If a V photon, the cat remains alive. We do not know, and we cannot know, whether the photon is a V or an H until we have detected it. Thus, according to Schrodinger, until then, we do not know and we cannot know whether the cat is alive or dead. Beyond that, however, there is no result until we have made our observation (66). Without observation, the cat must be presumed to be neither alive nor dead!

Reality depends on observation, at least according to quantum physics. To be real, an object must be observed. It must be validated. Even that, however, is not enough. To be completely real, it must be validated not only by others, but also by itself. For, it is one thing to have an objective reality. Chairs, tables, and stalks of wheat fall into this category. But things which are real merely as objects only have whatever reality outside observers assign to them. If I think something is a chair and I sit on it, then that's what it is "to me." It may not be a chair to others, and, of course, it will never be anything to itself.

Now, suppose my hypothetical chair possessed not only objective, but subjective self-awareness. Only then could it be independent. Only then could its reality be unqualified by the views of others. Whether or not anyone else ever becomes aware of it, it has existence per se, because it is aware of itself. Descartes had this in mind when he declared, "I think. Therefore, I am."

Now, chairs, tables, and stalks of wheat can never have this level of being. Most likely, ants and fish and lizards can't either. They are reactive, rather than self-directed. Self-conscious beings, such as some animals and, presumably, almost all humans have the opportunity for an independent, self-guided existence. We reflect ourselves. Therefore, we direct ourselves. Our reality is intrinsic. It comes from within. It is not qualified or conditioned by what others may or may not think about us. At least, it doesn't have to be.

If that's the case for animals and humans, then, surely, it must be so for God. If God is omnipotent, He must not only be omniscient, but He must also be completely independent and self-aware. He must be self-directed. He must be more than a super-computer, or a vast library of knowledge. He must be more than a passive repository of information. Otherwise, He is not omnipotent, but powerless; merely a tool for others to apply or ignore, as they see fit. To be omnipotent, God must be fully realized. He must be complete, perfect self-actualization.

The Definition of Consciousness

I have just argued that the reality of anything depends on the awareness of it. And I have further argued that intrinsic reality - independent of what anyone else thinks - comes from self-awareness. Certainly, then, if God is real, and if His reality is independent, He must be aware of Himself. Finally, if the Universe is God, then also the Universe must be aware of itself.

All this begs the question - what is consciousness? How do we detect it? How can we prove whether or not the Universe has it? This is not an easy question to answer. Indeed, David Chalmers calls it, "the hard problem." Steven Sutherland goes even further, stating, "nothing worth reading has been written on it."

One way to approach the issue is to define what consciousness is not. It is not our mental state when we are in a dreamless sleep, or in a coma, or dead. It is not something computers have. Computers can be considered "intelligent," but not conscious. Computers can calculate, remember, and use logic, in many cases better than humans. Today's computers can beat humans in chess, at cards, or in Jeopardy! So, computers can be very, very smart. Yet, they are not conscious. Intelligence and consciousness must be two different things.

Consciousness, as opposed to intelligence, has been defined in the following ways: it is the ability to experience; it is the ability to have sensations, emotions, and feelings; it is "what it is like to feel something" (Koch); it is the ability to know what you know. In that sense it is a kind of mirroring, a mirroring of the contents of one's own mind. But it is more than that. It is the "constructed model of one's attentional focus" (Gratziano and Kastner). So, beyond simple mirroring, it is a kind of summing up of what is being mirrored. It is a unified, abstract representation of diverse sensory inputs and memories.

However, that can only be part of the story. There must not only be a representation but also a reception of that representation. There must be a _self_. And this is the critical factor computers do not have, and may never have. Computers do not have a self. Whatever information they produce can only be for the edification of others. They themselves can never know what they know because they have no selves to know it.

The Definition of Self

What, then, is the self? Much of the discussion revolves around the question of identity. For example, does a person still have a self if he's lost some or many of his body parts; if he acquires a different face; if he acquires a different set of memories; or, if he loses all his current memories; if he becomes severely mentally ill? The problem with these various definitions is that they explain one person's individuality, as distinct from other individuals. They are descriptive. They objectively define the constellation of features that make a person unique.

But self is not the same thing as individuality. Individuality is a set of externally observable characteristics. If individuality and self were synonymous, then tables, chairs, doorknobs, and even computers would all have a self. They do not.

The self, as opposed to one's objective identity, is the subjective receptor for our experiences. It is what we refer to when we say "I see, I hear, I taste, I think."

Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon and professor at Harvard Medical School, has recently come out with a book called Proof of Heaven. Dr. Alexander had a near-death experience when e-coli infected his brain, placing him in a coma and, he claims, shutting down all electro-chemical activity in his "entire cerebral cortex" (2012). He relates, "...during my seven days of coma I not only remained fully conscious but journeyed to a stunning world of beauty and peace and unconditional love..." He concludes that consciousness exists outside the body, and it is "our primary link to the larger Universe."

In other words, the self, that which consciously reflects upon what our senses pick up, may not be something we can describe in strictly mechanical terms. Indeed, the self may not be something contained entirely within our bodies or our brains. That's why it's so difficult to describe. Our selves may be conduits to the Universe. We may be connected to the Universe in ways we do not understand. The source of individual consciousness may be universal consciousness. And, if so, the existence of the one, gives evidence for the reality of the other.

Now, we are entirely justified in being skeptical of Dr. Alexander's account. Many have pointed out flaws in his story. And the phenomenon he describes may be the result of straightforward bio-chemical activity. I do not cite him here as proof positive for anything. On the other hand, it is tantalizing to consider his testimony.

B. Evidence for God as Conscious

Human Evolution

The argument here is that God is a Being, rather than a Force. That is distinct from Eastern religious tradition, which typically views the supreme power as residing in a force, such as Brahma. It is also distinct from some forms of Deism, including scientific Deism, which not only see nature as God, but, more accurately, see God as nature.

The argument here emphatically differs from Eastern religion and Deism. My contention is that God is more than a force; that He is a Being with intelligence and consciousness; in fact, with supreme intelligence and supreme consciousness. His intelligence is omniscient. He knows everything. But that is not enough. God has to be more than an encyclopedia or a super computer. He must also possess that quality which neither an encyclopedia nor a super computer can ever possess. He must also be aware. Indeed, he must be supremely aware. Only then can God be entirely self-realized and sovereign over every other force.

Now, when we search for evidence that such a consciousness exists, once again, we really have only one place to look: ourselves. Other animals, such as dolphins and apes, seem to possess some degree of consciousness, but not as much as we do. Also, there may be, and probably are, other beings in the Universe with a consciousness equal to or greater than ours, but we don't know about them; not yet. So, we are constrained to look at ourselves. By asking what consciousness is in humans, we can better understand what it is in God, and whether there is evidence for such a God-like consciousness in the Universe.

Radiation

The Universe we live in has many facets. Any particular object, for example, has mass and shape, texture and hardness. If it moves, it has directionality and speed. It also radiates. It sends out signals that travel far beyond its periphery. These signals include light waves and sound waves, gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves, and chemical waves. All these signals, and perhaps many more, emanate from any particular physical object.

Given that the Universe and everything in it radiate signals, it was inevitable that some of those signals be received. Why did consciousness arise? Why did the original single celled organism first react to stimuli? We can answer that question by saying it was an accident. Or, we can say it was a fortuitous combination of just the right chemicals. But can we not also say that with such an abundant flow of signals constantly being released, was it not a foregone conclusion, that eventually something somewhere would evolve to capture it? Moreover, survival depends on it. Living beings have to be aware of their surroundings.

Our brains have evolved to mirror some of the facets of the Universe in which we operate. In a sense, we have developed counterparts inside our heads to the properties of the world around us. We have acquired smell, sight, hearing, taste, and feeling to accurately reflect the signals and the properties of external objects. Our nerve receptors pick up fundamental aspects of things, such as their color, sweetness, sourness, or loudness. But then these basic sensations are combined in areas of the brain, such as the olfactory bulbs, which relate a multiplicity of disparate sensations into composites. That is what happens in the olfactory "maps," as the next section describes.

The First Layer of Abstraction: Sensation

So, then, regarding consciousness in humans, how did it evolve? Apparently, it evolved in layers, layers of abstraction, with each layer allowing for greater and greater levels of self-control. Upon each successive layer, we transformed from purely reactive organisms - always the object and never the subject of our own fate - to being active determinants of our own destinies. As this occurred, we transcended from object to subject. We became, in effect, "self-made men."

How did it happen? It started with chemistry. Some chemicals, for example, react to light. Single celled organisms that draw energy from light employ light sensitive chemicals to orient themselves. This is the primitive eye.

In multi-celled organisms, the light response must be communicated from one cell to another. So, nerve fibers developed. Then, as organisms grew ever more complex, variations in light stimuli needed to be coordinated. So, nerve fibers evolved to flow to a central hub, where they could be compared and contrasted with each other, prior to the organism's response. This center was the brain.

Let's examine the question of human consciousness in some detail. And let's begin with the most primitive of the senses, the sense of smell. As with all of the other senses, the basic mechanisms of olfactory awareness include: receptors, dendrites, nerve cells, axons, and cerebral cortex. Our odor receptors are lodged just behind the bridge of the nose in the olfactory epithelium, a small tissue about the "diameter of two pencil erasers" (Angier in Wade 9-14).

When an odor molecule from an external stimulus wafts into our nose and attaches to a complementary receptor, like a key in a lock, the receptor changes shape. This sends a signal from the receptor to the nerve cell via "dendrites," which are connecting fibers. The signal alters properties of the nerve cell, to which the dendrites are attached, prompting the nerve to fire another signal toward the brain. Signals from various nerves are compared to "smell maps" in the olfactory bulbs, between the nose and the brain. Nerve cells pass their information to the olfactory bulbs via "axons," which act like connecting wires. All axons from the same class of fibers hit a single node in one of the two olfactory bulbs.

The brain matches disparate bits of information with its smell maps, and synthesizes them into a coherent label, for example, the smell of lemon spray air freshener, as opposed to the smell of lemons, per se, or the smell of some other type of air freshener. Humans have about 1000 distinct odor nerves, with each nerve having about 1000 receptors. These nerves can produce 1023 different combinations. That's a trillion trillion. Yet, human smell is some ten to 20 times less sensitive than a dog's. There is probably no single "lemon" specific or "rose" specific receptor in our brains. They are rather the result of a combination of stimuli from a variety of receptors. This, then, is an example of how we receive sensations. It is the first layer of abstraction.

The Second Layer of Abstraction: Association

The synthesis of information from different nodes in the olfactory bulbs into their corresponding smell maps produces a representation inside our brains of an external object. Further axons extend from the olfactory bulbs to various parts of the brain, including the limbic system - the seat of our emotions, sexuality and drive - the pituitary gland, the hypothalamus, and the thalamus. Thus, the smell of a rose arouses other associations inside our heads. These other associations trigger memories of past events, of people and places, of moods and feelings. So, a rose is not just a rose. It is an entity which has meaning within a much wider context both for most observers and for us in particular, given our uniquely rosy experiences. And this is the second layer of abstraction.

The Binding Problem

Different types of sensory cells for the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin send information to their "home areas" on the outer surface of our cerebral cortex. Moreover, 97% of the neural connections in the cerebral cortex are from one area of the cortex to another. Sensations of one instant may be carried by millions of activated neurons, located in different regions of the cortex. How does the brain combine this multitude of sensations into a single coherent experience? Brain scientists call this the "binding problem," and consider it a key to unlocking the secret of consciousness (Blakeslee 232-237).

Recent studies suggest that the answer has to do with timing. The brain apparently has traffic signals. They are "inhibitory interneurons." Just as actual traffic signals cause a number of vehicles to bunch up together on red and then proceed in a single batch on green, just so the interneurons bind sensations together in packets. The inhibitory interneurons fire forty times per second and send a wave that sweeps the brain from front to back. All sensations that occur during a fortieth of a second are thereby bound together into a single frame.

Information from auditory, visual, tactile, olfactory, motor and other sensory signals are combined. They are bound together and associated with each other within that discrete frame of time. In that way, our brain takes snapshots of the world. Each snapshot represents everything occuring within a fortieth of a second. Like a reel of film in a movie projector, the succession of individual frames, one after the other, forms our experience of the world.

When the inhibitory interneurons are damaged, it's like a failing traffic signal. Our sensations all run together. The result is epilepsy, a traffic jam of uncoordinated electrical activity in the brain. So, our human consciousness depends on the reception of signals, on the transmission of those signals to a central hub, on the context of associations those signals activate within our brains, and the binding of those signals and associations together into a frame of time.

Of course, this is only part of the story. As Sandra Blakeslee (31) observes in the case of the sensation of touch, "No one knows how the brain interprets signals as feelings of pleasure or pain." The same might be said about taste, sights, sounds, and smells. We may know how sensations are captured, transmitted, and bound. But how are they _received_? From a mechanical standpoint, computers work very like our brains. But even though computers acquire, store, synthesize, and bundle information, they have no awareness of that information. Why us and not them?

Reflex Arc

Maybe the answer lies in something called the "reflex arc" (Johnson 210). It's what connects a sensation, on the one hand, with a physical reaction, on the other. For example, when a sudden light shines in your eye and you blink; or when the doctor taps you on the knee and your leg shoots out. In both examples, no thinking is involved. Your body reacts automatically. This is also how the senses work in most primitive organisms. The more we evolved, however, the more our brains came to mediate between sensation and response. Of course, even highly evolved beings, such as ourselves, still retain many primitive reflexes, such as the blink or the knee jerk or the autonomic nervous system, in general. But in addition, we have added layers of complexity.

For us, instead of a simple physical response automatically following a simple stimulus, we have the capacity to receive and synthesize many and varied stimuli and then choose from a wide range of physical responses. And the choice we make is not automatic, or mechanical, but rather it is conscious. Yet, the final result is still a reflex arc. Input from stimuli lead ultimately to physical response.

Perhaps, then, we should think of stimuli as "action cues." What we experience of the external world is a series of prompts. There are approach prompts and avoidance prompts, eating prompts and sex prompts, sleep prompts and wake prompts, and so forth. Perhaps what we apprehend in our brains are not just simple facts about the external world, but rather impulses to respond. Because we humans are so highly evolved, we may have lost sight of the link between stimulus and response. Our mental processing is much more complex than that of the sunflower, for instance, which automatically bends toward the light. But it is precisely because of that complexity that the impulse to turn is experienced, rather than immediately acted upon. It is experienced so that we can consider it, reflect on it, and then determine for ourselves how to behave.

In other words, organisms that react automatically do not have experiences. Organisms that do not react automatically do. In higher order beings, what we call experience is an impulse to react which has been temporarily blocked and stored in our minds, so that we can remember it, reflect on it, and decide what to do. The feelings, sights, sounds, smells, and tastes we have are abstractions. They are representations of things that are impacting us, pulling on us, attempting to move us.

Consider smells, for example. They are the most primitive of the senses. Don't we generally think of smells in terms of "eat"/ "don't eat"; "be attracted to"/ "be repulsed by"; "move closer"/ "move away." It is hard to imagine a smell without simultaneously conjuring up a response to it. This suggests that the smells themselves involve a stimulus to act. Perhaps the same is true for sights, sounds, feelings, and tastes.

The process of converting an action stimulus into an abstraction which we can reflect upon is part of the process of experiencing it. The sensations that we have are a result of placing in abeyance an urge to act. Sensations are impulse control. Computers can't do that. They react mechanically and automatically to whatever is input into them. Hence, they have no sensations, and no control. Bulls charging a moving cape, on the other hand, have poor impulse control. Their reactions are _almost_ automatic. They do see movement, but they don't reflect on it. Their consciousness is dim.

Reflection and experience go hand in hand. Indeed, highly reflective people are sometimes mocked as being "overly sensitive." Consider Nazi soldiers of World War II. Their standard excuse is they were "just following orders." What they're saying is they were reacting like automatons. The stimulus in the form of an order produced a knee-jerk response in the form of obedience. In that way, they could be insensitive to the enormity of the horrors they were committing. Not reflecting enabled them not to feel.

The Third Layer of Abstraction: Language

Reflection requires conceptualization. Conceptualization requires abstraction. So, it is likely that language and the use of symbols have enhanced our consciousness. Our ability to create composite concepts out of myriad stimuli represents a third layer of abstraction in our minds. On the one hand, this distances us from the immediacy of external stimuli. Imagine abstracting the intimacy of a kiss, for example, or the piquancy of a taste. On the other hand, the ability to conceptualize with language frees us from the immediate, from the here and now, and opens us up to ranges of time and space, that would otherwise be inaccessible.

Language played an important part in the famous Milgram experiment. Conducted right after World War II, test subjects were, in effect, put in an analogous position to Nazi soldiers. They were told to follow orders. And they did. Specifically, they were told to press a button and deliver an electric shock to other (phony) test subjects separated from view by a partition. The shocks were to be administered whenever the supposed recipients of those shocks answered a question incorrectly. The more the recipient answered incorrectly, the higher the shock the subjects were ordered to administer. The astonishing fact is that most people, 65 per cent of them, progressed to maximum voltage. Even though their hapless victims screamed in agony as the shock levels increased, still most people obeyed.

Why? Well, they were told by lab-coated technicians standing nearby not to question orders; not to think about it; not to reflect on it; just obey. And it turns out the main reason most people did obey is because they could not put into words any reason for not doing so. They couldn't formulate an objection. Words failed them. Lacking the words and the ability to conceptualize their situations, they also mitigated the ability to feel. Language magnifies consciousness. It is the third layer of abstraction.

Fourth Layer of Abstraction: Irony

The ability to have feelings and sensations must surely be the basis for consciousness. Computers can't do this. But animals and people can. A hammer can hit a nail, and the nail will react. Sunlight can illuminate a flower, and the flower will react. But neither the nail nor the flower "feel" the impact. Computers don't either.

But when an entity does feel the effect of an event, then we can say it is conscious. And certainly, we humans are not alone in this achievement. Most, if not all, animals can feel pleasure and pain, heat and cold, hunger and thirst, attraction or repulsion. To have any of these sensations is to be conscious.

But these feelings are a response to a direct stimulus. Stick a needle in the skin, for example, and the result is pain. There is another set of feelings, however, which are more indirect. Anger and fear, for example, can happen in the absence of any direct stimulus, but rather in the anticipation that such a stimulus will occur. The feelings are certainly real, but the experience is more abstract.

Yet, we humans are not alone in having these more advanced sensations. As any dog or cat owner can tell you, animals can certainly experience fear and anger. And it is a useful adaptation for them to have; because, if they wait for the dreaded event to occur, before forming a response to it, by then it might be much too late.

Still higher up on the evolutionary scale are _emotions_ , as opposed to simple sensations. Included are happiness, sadness, shame, anxiety, hate, and, of course, love. Presumably, insects and fish don't have these emotions. Perhaps, rats, mice, and reptiles don't either. But not only dogs and cats, but also, elephants, monkeys, dolphins, and other higher order animals do. Like us, these animals have emotions.

But there is a _fourth_ level of abstraction, which, apparently, only we humans can have. This level involves complex emotions, such as a sense of humor, a sense of ridiculousness, a sense of chagrin, a sense of incredulousness, and, in general, a sense of irony, that no other animal seems to possess. Like hunger and thirst, these are things that we feel, and, therefore, they define us as conscious. But unlike hunger and thirst, they form a sophisticated level of consciousness that makes us unique in the animal world.

Future Layers of Abstraction

And this brings me to the subject of God. If consciousness is real, rather than a chimera, a "ghost" in the machine; and if it is a fact that consciousness can be enhanced, going from the simple reflex arc to, for example, relishing an irony; and if we humans have been able to elevate our consciousness up to a first, second, third, and fourth level of abstraction; then, why stop there? Why not a fifth, sixth, and seventh level of abstraction, beyond what we have already attained?

Thus, by picturing consciousness as layers of abstraction, we see three things: first, how greater consciousness may simply be a matter of adding more layers; second, that a God-like layer of consciousness might be very much greater; third, that such a level of consciousness is not only possible but inevitable within the context of our Universe.

So, the evidence for a God-like level of consciousness is in ourselves. The trajectory we followed from one layer to the next is not so mysterious in retrospect. But it is noteworthy that at any particular layer, it would have been impossible to imagine what the next layer might look like. For that reason, in our present state, we cannot imagine what form God's consciousness might take. But we can conceive of how to get there.

However else we might define what God is, He is surely a _Universal Consciousness_. And it is in ourselves that we see such a consciousness emerging. How is that possible? It was no accident. It is possible because we are mirroring an innate characteristic of the Universe we live in. If that were not true, then we could not mirror it.

An analogy might be a mold and the figure cast within that mold. We humans are that figure. The greater Universe is the mold. We could not be what we are today; our consciousness could not exist as it does today, without a universal mold to shape it. In the next section we see what that mold looks like.

Space Itself Is Conscious

In the paragraphs above, I have argued that the best evidence for universal consciousness is us. Even though we don't quite know what consciousness is, we do know - we do know for an absolute certainty that it exists. We possess it. Moreover, we also know that our consciousness has grown by leaps and bounds in the past. So, why shouldn't it continue to do so in the future?

Now, supporting evidence comes from a most unlikely source, the renowned physicist and avowed atheist P.W. Atkins. And it comes in the form of Atkins' intriguing assertion that "space itself is self-conscious" (The Creation 71), and later, "In a deep sense, spacetime itself is self-aware" (95). This is because consciousness is essentially born of complexity. And complexity is only possible with three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time.

The dictionary defines complexity as "consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts" The word complexity comes from the Latin "complectere," meaning to entwine or braid. In other words, something complex is like a knot. And thus, complexity cannot occur with a mere one or two dimensions. You simply can't cross one end _over_ the other. And complexity, the knottiness of matter, just comes apart with four spacial dimensions or more. In effect, matter cannot turn in on itself - in its simplest form - or contemplate itself, in its most advanced form without 3D space and 1D time, through which that space inexorably evolves.

Moreover, only in three dimensions are planetary orbits of persistent stability for the evolution of complex molecules, life, and human consciousness (83). In four or more spacial dimensions, the orbits could easily be dislodged.

Evolution Favors Complexity

So, 4D spacetime is self-conscious in the sense that it turns in on itself, without unravelling. Given this characteristic, it was inevitable from the start that greater and greater forms of complexity would emerge.

Atoms combine to form molecules; molecules combine to form proteins; proteins combine to form cells. The greater the complexity, the greater the chances for survival. From the perspective of the molecule, it is more likely to endure if it is locked together with other molecules. From the perspective of the cluster of interlocking molecules, they are more likely to survive, if the various molecules perform diverse but complementary functions.

Consider the crucible of elements, the star. What happens in a star? Combination. The simplest of atoms, hydrogen with one electron and one proton, cannot survive under pressure of gravity. So, it becomes the denser element, helium, which becomes the denser element carbon, which becomes the denser element oxygen. The process continues until iron, at which point fusion ends and stars explode. All along, each element is becoming more dense and more massive. Not less. Simple, weak elements are overcome.

The extreme heat and pressure of stars promote density and diversity. Under the more moderate environments of planets and asteroids, however, a different form of complexity emerges. There is not enough heat or enough pressure to convert one element to another. But conditions favor another type of combination. Different elements combine with each other. And complex molecules survive better than simple molecules, for the same reason a rope survives better than a thread. Indeed, simple molecules get eaten up by complex molecules and incorporated into their structure. For example, mitochondria are simple molecules which have been incorporated into living cells. In that context, they perform a specialized function - energy production - enhancing the survival of the cell, which, in turn, enhances their own survival, as well.

Thus, evolution favors complexity. For that reason, life appears to have been inevitable from the moment of creation. The unfolding of consciousness was inherent in the original configuration, just as the flower is inherent in the seed. And because this unfolding has been in prospect since the beginning of time, Atkins can assert that space itself is conscious. The simplest form of matter, three quarks circling around each other to form protons and neutrons - is the prototype for the most complex form of matter at the other end of evolution; namely, human consciousness.

The Inevitability of Human Consciousness

Even though, as described above, consciousness evolved in layers, nevertheless, the final outcome – the final layer – was inevitable from the outset. It was more than probable; more than highly likely. It was a certainty that consciousness would arise. Why?

We can say that the Universe has a _potential_ for consciousness, but it was more than that. Potential outcomes may or may not materialize. You may have the potential for making a slam-dunk in basketball, for example, but many factors might intervene to frustrate that outcome. In our Universe, consciousness is more than a potentiality; it is an inevitability.

Infinite Monkeys?

If this is true, then, how did such an inevitability arise? Well, there is the "infinite monkey theory." It states that an infinite number of monkeys typewriting randomly for an infinite amount of time will eventually compose the complete works of William Shakespeare. In other words, human consciousness could come about by _sheer accident_ , given enough time and space. I absolutely reject this possibility. In fact, the chances of any one monkey even typing the single word "banana" is one in 11 billion (McGill). I do not believe that Shakespeare – let alone his complete works – could ever happen by chance. Nor could consciousness.

If not by chance, then, consciousness came about _on purpose_ , either externally or internally. If from an external source, then that means a Creator did it. In that sense, it would be like a cobbler building a shoe, or a laborer building a car, or a contractor building a house.

But the argument in this essay is that God and the Universe are One; that God is not separate and apart from His creation. To imagine otherwise would be anthropomorphic. It would be comparing God to us, when we build an object. It would undermine the whole notion of God as omnipotent and omniscient. And it would divide the Universe into two separate entities: God and "not God," the Creator and the creation. To me, this argument makes no sense. There can be no place where God does not reside.

The only alternative, then, is that the Universe is sui generis. Consciousness is inevitable because it is inherent in the Universe. It is internal. How does this work? Could it be like a recipe where all of the ingredients are to exact specification? Could it be like a blueprint, where the plans are infallible? I think not. The recipe doesn't cook itself. The blueprint doesn't construct itself. They are not inevitable outcomes; they are just passive prescriptions.

A better analogy might be an embryo. It assembles itself. It expands and grows. But all of its features and capabilities are already there. If consciousness exists today, it is probably because it was contained within the embryonic Universe billions of years ago. It was inevitable, because it was present from the beginning. The Universe is conscious now, because it was conscious from the start.

So, to recap: consciousness is either an accident or on purpose. It can't be an accident. It must be on purpose. The purpose is either external or internal. It can't be external. Therefore, it must be internal. It must be an inherent feature of the Universe itself.

Section Four. Immanent

A. The Concept of God as Immanent

We reflect God's immanence in our sense of awe. We stand amazed at the grandeur of the Universe. We are overwhelmed by the magnificence of nature, of giant mountains, of plunging waterfalls, of panoramic sunsets. But even in the smallest, the subtlest, the most commonplace of things - the intricacy of the human cell, the glow of intelligence in a human face, the complex symmetry of a single leaf - we see things that stop our hearts. This, of course, is not evidence. But it gives us cause and reason to look for evidence, because we sense that God is not just beyond and apart from us, but also inside of us and all around us in every aspect of our lives. "When we speak of the supernatural, then, we are speaking not of something above and inaccessible, but of something here and now and supercharged with the grandeur of God. As when Blake wrote, 'Heaven in a grain of sand and eternity in a flower'" (O'Malley, 2000, 49).

Historically, two camps have argued the existence of God. These are the "realists" and the "non-realists." The latter argue that God is purely transcendent and apart from the material world. Such a God can never be observed directly in "phenomena." He can only be experienced subjectively through "noumena." Noumena are non-material, transcendent experiences. And as Kant points out, we could never objectively prove the existence of God through noumena (Runzo 153). Thus, "The transcendent God has for many become an unavailable God" (151).

The position of the realist camp, on the other hand, is that God is not transcendent. He is immanent. He exists in all the "phenomena" of the Universe, and therefore can be directly observed and proven. This position dates back to William Paley in his 1802 tract Natural Theology, or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearance of Nature, and even long before that in Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 77 B.C. That is our position, as well.

God's immanence is intimate. When we question what God is, we are also questioning what we are. If we consist, in essence, of basically a packet of energy and are not really as solid or material as we seem, then it must be that, despite appearances, we are not really wholly discrete beings, but rather each of us is a locus in a confluence of forces. We are bound by a web of energy at the microscopic level. And the "transcendent" exists not primarily in the vast spaces above us but rather in the minute forces within us.

Logically, when we search for God, what we are really looking for is our God - even my God - what created me, gave me a purpose, shaped my destiny, and offers my salvation. It is really a personal, selfish, and intimate search. We are asking about our own nature. God answers the question of who we are. And who we are, in turn, provides evidence of God. Is God, perhaps, the web of energy in which we are a coordinate? Is God the totality of interconnections and forces that, taken together, shape all events at all times and every event at every instant? And can this totality have intelligence?

God is the only one who shares our lives. He knows us, because He is in us, and we are in Him. Our parents, our friends, our loved ones may have empathy for us. But only God shares our existence completely. He mirrors us and makes us real. Because of God, the Universe is never indifferent to our existence. And we are not alone.

And it is necessary that such a God exists. It is necessary that we are not alone. It is necessary because what we see, how we feel is valid. Thus, when we ask, "Is God real," we are, in effect, also asking, "are we real." And we know we are. So, He must be.

B. Evidence for God as Immanent

Pure Energy

Physicists refer to matter as "frozen energy." The Universe of matter is the Universe of space, and the progression of matter through space is the passage of time. From the perspective of pure energy, however, as Einstein has pointed out, there is no space or time. Einstein posed the question what would it be like to ride on a beam of light. The answer is that time would seem to stand still. And if you were traveling from one end of the Universe to the other, you would seem to have arrived at the very moment you left. There would be no past or future. No before and after. All would be present, immanent, and now.

There is a scientific basis, therefore, for immanence. That is the perspective of pure energy. And pure energy is the basic substance of which the Universe is formed.

In addition, all the evidence cited above for God as Being, for God as ubiquitous, and for God as omniscient also applies here. If God is Being (as opposed to non-being), then He is present in all things. If God is ubiquitous, then, there is no place He doesn't reside. And if God is omniscient, then He understands all things.

Then, why even discuss "immanence," if it is synonymous with Being, ubiquity, and omniscience? The answer is because it is not synonymous. Immanence is a special subset. It means that God is always with us, always hears us, wherever we may be. It is the personal bond we have with God, and it includes the complete and perfect understanding that God has of us. In that sense, immanence is a special type of ubiquity

Music

A great piece of evidence for God's existence would be if He showed up in the guise of a person, told us who He was, and performed a few miracles to prove it. But I would contend we already see God everywhere. And we already hear Him, not through a particular language – which most people don't understand; not through a set of rational arguments or prescriptions – which don't touch the core of who we really are; and not at a specific point in time – which quickly recedes into the shadows of history.

Rather, we hear Him all the time. We hear Him if we listen; we hear Him no matter what language we speak; we hear Him no matter our condition in life – rich or poor, old or young, healthy or infirm; and we hear Him in the core of our being. And if we have any trouble in hearing, we have individual composers of great genius and perception, who can help us out.

The thing about music, that sets it apart from other arts, is it makes us move. Painting and sculpture don't do that. Literature doesn't. And, as for dance, it's the movement music causes. But, without any verbal mediation, music gets us to move like puppets on a string.

What connects the music that we feel to the wider Universe is math. Look at any musical score, and the first thing you see is the time signature: 4/4, 6/8, 3/2, etc. Moreover, the notes themselves are defined by sound frequencies. And the distance between one note and another is precisely the mathematical distance between frequencies. In effect, a piece of music is a set of mathematical equations, reproduced in waves of sound.

Likewise, the Universe proceeds according to laws, which are also mathematical in form. Ultimately, it is those forms which inspire and inform the pieces that composers write. They are channeling the rhythms and harmonies of the Universe around them. Through them, the Universe moves us. It moves us with a language that is not a cacophony of random noises, not a discordant and senseless glut of accidental collisions. It moves us through something altogether lovely, compelling, and, often, brilliant. Through that music, we feel the Universe immanent and inside us.

Section Five. Good

A. The Concept of God as Good

God is good by virtue of His omnipotence. If we define the good as the way things ought to be, and if we define the bad as the way things ought not to be, then the bad is a failure to achieve what ought to be. In that case, an omnipotent God would have to be good. An omnipotent God cannot fail. So, either there is no such thing as good, in the sense of a standard of rightness, or God must be good by definition.

Some might argue that one could actually choose evil over good. A person might prefer to do evil. And, in that case, why might God not so choose? After all, we don't picture the devil as one who really wants to do good, but can't achieve it. Satan prefers evil. My response is that the devil is misled. The good is the right way to be by definition. To do evil, therefore, means either that one failed to do good, or did not understand what the good was to begin with. Deists put it this way. God must be good because He is perfect. "Since He is perfectly rational, He can do no other than follow the standard of right reason" (Byrne 59).

Of course, God's idea of the good and our idea of the good might very well not be the same thing. I will return to this argument momentarily. For now, I am not espousing any particular definition of the good in this passage. I am merely claiming God must be good, whatever good means.

This is not to say that man cannot be good without God. Some would argue that without God, there can be no moral order in the Universe. Anything goes. An evil man would be no worse than a virtuous man, without an ultimate arbiter to judge the one from the other. That argument is certainly wrong. Even without God, good and evil do exist. Even without God, acts of kindness and charity exist, as do acts of atrocity. Even without God, we should still believe that slavery is wrong, that the abuse of children is wrong, that wanton cruelty is wrong. Even without God, we believe that acts of generosity and courtesy and sympathy and compassion are good.

On the other hand, it is also indisputable that human beings are weak and ignorant. Therefore, no human can be certain of what is good and evil in any given instant. Nor can any individual, however well intentioned, be certain that his efforts will bring about good results. We are all too familiar with unintended consequences. That is why, here on Earth, we should prefer democracy over kings - even philosopher kings. History has provided ample evidence how concentrated power corrupts, and how the best and noblest of leaders are often followed by the worst.

So, it is not inconsistent to say that good and evil do exist; that they may even exist apart from God; but that perfect goodness can only be embodied by God, and God alone. God is omniscient and omnipotent, and we are not. It logically follows that He must be good.

God's Goodness and God's Love

God's goodness is a manifestation of His love. This position is a departure from the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Old Testament, in particular, is replete with examples of God's jealousy, his anger, his vengefulness, his hate. We hear it weekly from the pulpit. We read about it in tracts such as Johnathan Edwards' Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. In Genesis, God's wrath manifests itself from the outset, in the casting of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.

But how can this be? How can God be angry? Being omnipotent and omniscient, He certainly can't feel frustration, irritation, pique, wrath. He can't be disappointed. He can't have false expectations. He can't be double crossed or deceived. These are all fallible emotions. They can only be experienced by fallible beings, such as ourselves.

Being immanent in all things; being part of us, as we are of Him; sharing all of our feelings; perceiving all of our thoughts, and knowing perfectly well why we have those feelings and those thoughts better than we understand them ourselves, how can God be anything but compassionate? God must be the embodiment of love, and that love must be unconditional. We humans struggle to feel that love. Some of us never do, because of our own limitations. Others feel it on occasion. But if and when we do feel it, it's like the passage from the ex-slave trader, who came to experience his own personal revelation: "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now I'm found; was blind, but now I see."

The Existence of Evil in the World

The pervasiveness of evil is one of the traditional arguments against the existence of God. When horrible and unspeakable things happen even to the most innocent and decent among us, doesn't that mean that the Universe is at best indifferent and at worst unjust? Doesn't that mean there is no morally supreme Being?

Recently, a young man was killed by a wood chipper. He was only 19 years old, and new to his construction job. Somehow, he managed to get caught up by the machine and slowly but inexorably pulled into it. Is it possible to imagine a more horrendous way to die? Why did such a young innocent person have to be killed at all? And why, especially, did he have to be slaughtered in such agonizing torment, that we would not wish on the most evil and despicable wretch?

Vincent Bugliosi, famed prosecutor of Charles Manson, poses the question in his book Outrage, about the trial of O. J. Simpson for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. "When tragedies like the murder of Nicole and Ron occur, they get one to thinking about the notion of God. Nicole was only 35, Ron just 25, both outgoing, friendly, well-liked young people who had a zest for life. Their lives were brutally extinguished by a cold-blooded murderer. How does God, if there is a God, permit such a horrendous and terrible act to occur, along with the countless other unspeakable atrocities committed by man against his fellow man throughout history?"

Bugliosi raises the dilemma: if God is all powerful, yet permits atrocities to happen, then He is not good. But if God is good, and atrocity occurs anyway, then He is not all powerful.

A Monsignor at a Catholic school Bugliosi attended as a boy explained it to him this way. God gives us all free will and is not responsible for the choices we make. The young Bugliosi countered that if God were all knowing, then why would He put people on the Earth who He knew were going to end up in hell?

Let's look at Bugliosi's dilemma. First, consider the Monsignor's argument about free will. If man had no choice, then could he ever be either good or bad? No. He would be pre-programmed or pre-destined to act in a certain way, just like a robot. Yet, in the final analysis, what is a person but the sum of his or her moral choices? As Churchill said, "Watch your character, for your character is your destiny." Without free will, character would be irrelevant. We would lose the very thing that makes us most distinctly human.

On the other hand, why not allow free will, but within a more restricted range? Why not curtail man's ability to commit atrocity? Why not make genocide, torture, murder unthinkable? Just as there are some societies with very low crime rates, because of custom and upbringing; just as there appear to be some (almost) universal genetic taboos, such as bestiality or incest, why not restrict free will to that extent, but allow it in all other regards? Even now, much of our behavior is driven by biology and instinct. We all pretty much learn to walk and learn language in our infancy. Those aren't choices. We all generally go through puberty driven by hormones. Again, not a choice. Wouldn't humanity be better off if issues of good and evil were confined to table manners and social indiscretions?

I have no answer for this. From time to time, we read in the newspaper how someone places an animal or even an infant in a microwave oven, then turns up the heat. Personally, I cannot imagine how humanity would be hampered if such behavior were instinctually or biologically impossible to commit. On the other hand, I also don't see any point to mosquitoes or Ebola fever either. Perhaps some larger good is being served. I simply can't see what it is.

Then, there is the argument that all of life is a test. Fail and you go to hell. Succeed, and thence to heaven, or some finer reincarnation in the next life. Under this view God watches from the sidelines to see what path we choose. But to me this is inconsistent with the view that we are not separate from God, but part of him. He is in us. We are of Him.

What about the argument that if God is all knowing, and knows the future, why not prevent evil before it happens? To this, I say, why not just make us all perfect? Yet, we are not. We are imperfect in so many ways, why presume we might be made perfect in this one particular way? We have imperfect intelligence, imperfect wisdom, imperfect health, imperfect strength. So, too, we have imperfect morals. We are evolving. We are becoming civilized. But getting there is something we have to achieve on our own.

Suffering from Natural Causes

Even if, somehow, we could explain – or rationalize – man's cruelty to man, how do we deal with the suffering people endure from natural causes? Nature attacks us from land, sea, and air; through earthquakes and tsunamis; fire and ice; sinkholes, tornados and hurricanes; mosquitoes, malaria, cholera, AIDS, muscular dystrophy; through all the ravages attendant on old age, cancer, heart disease, pneumonia, and stroke. How do we justify so much suffering in the arms of a so-called merciful and benevolent God?

It is not enough to say, "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger." That sounds like an anodyne, cynical and flippant excuse for suffering, although it may contain a grain of truth. We are evolving. Much of that evolution is happening in the face of, and because of the many hurdles we have to overcome. The apotheosis of the human race depends on it.

But that's not enough. Where I am right now, I can look out on a sparkling bay, embraced on three sides by tropical mountains, and stretching toward a boundless horizon. It is very easy to feel the hand of God in the awe this view inspires. But as I walk the quaint cobblestone streets of this enchanted place, I also encounter the most gut-wrenching sorts of horror. There is a little man who has lost both of his legs and walks with shoes on his knees. Another person sits in his wheelchair because he has neither legs nor an arm. Another huddles on the ground with a begging cup and a cardboard sign he holds up to obscure the view of his face, which has turned black and bloated and grotesque.

Where is God in all of this? I can't say. I don't know. And any rationale I might offer can only seem callous and obtuse.

That being said, let me lay out, for what it's worth, one train of thought. The thesis of this essay is that God is the Universe, and that the Universe is God. God is present in all things and in all beings. God is indeed in the Bay and in the mountains and in the sky. But He is also in the cripple and the paraplegic and the deformed.

Many of us – most of us – are unaware of God's presence. But for those who suffer, the need for God is intense. Their suffering makes them mindful of Him. Whether cursing Him for their misfortune, or pleading with Him to alleviate their pain, they are locked in a tight embrace, like Jacob and the angel, with the All-Mighty. Stripped of everything else that makes life extraordinary and fulfilling and joyful, He is all they have.

Many would consider the realization of God, the knowing of God, to be a blessing. Yet people encompassed by worldly pleasures are often least likely to experience it. For example, nature has endowed the young with energy, enthusiasm, and beauty. Like the boundless sky, the glistening bay, and the lush mountains, they are the outward manifestation of a splendid and glorious Divinity. But for them all this bounty can, and often does, backfire, and they become self-destructive.

The old are less picturesque, but hopefully more wise. And there is something lovely in that wisdom. The very old, however, the ones closest to death, are the ones we generally avoid. We look the other way. How odd, then, that these are the ones who, bereft of almost all earthly pleasures, and faced with the torments of their age, are the very ones clinging most tenaciously to their God. Of course, it's somewhat driven by fear and desperation. But whatever the reason, it is in these people that an intimate realization of God is most likely to manifest.

None of us, of course, would choose this path. And I certainly am not advocating it. Nor am I condoning it. The misery and agony that some of us endure must, and should, cause all of us to grieve, and fervently pray we never share an equal fate. At the same time, it is well to consider that not all of God's wonders are apparent. Not all can easily be seen. Some are hidden and obscure, and out of view. Some take place inside ourselves through transformations that only we can feel.

Above all, the Universe follows the law of symmetry. And in the case of humanity, the outward pleasures of some may be balanced by the inward fulfillment of others. None of this, of course, is evidence that God exists. But if the argument in this essay is correct, and if God is truly within all of us, then this symmetry might explain why and how God can be good. It may be that those who suffer the greatest, experience Him the most.

The Triumph of the Good

So far, there is little evidence for optimism. The previous century has been perhaps the most barbaric of all time. Communism claimed about 100 million victims, with 72 million estimated to have been slaughtered or starved in China, alone. Add to that some 20 million killed by Lenin and Stalin, plus another two million Cambodians - one fourth of the country's population - massacred in the "killing fields." Leader of the Khmer Rouge Pol Pot, before he died of natural causes, told a magazine he had nothing to apologize for. His cause, he maintained, was "just."

In addition to communism's toll, include the tens of millions of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals slaughtered by the Nazis. Or, consider the 350,000 Chinese massacred by the Japanese in Nanking. Recalling this terrible event, Japanese veterans, now in their 80's, say they felt nothing shooting to death Chinese civilian men, women, girls, and boys. Said one, "It was like killing a pig."

In July, 1941, half the population of the Polish village of Jedwabne massacred the other half. It was during Nazi occupation. One of the first questions German occupiers were asked when they took over the town was, "Is it permitted to kill the Jews?" In a town meeting the German occupiers even proposed leaving one Jewish family from every profession alive. Local carpenter Bronislaw Szlesinski objected, "We have enough of our own craftsmen. We have to destroy all the Jews. None should stay alive." The mayor and city council agreed. Writing about the event 69 years later, columnist George Will concluded that Jedwabne tells us something about human nature. Villagers killed the Jews, he says, for one simple reason - because they could (Newsweek, 7/9/2001).

In all, World War II claimed about 50 million lives. These include the 100,000 killed in the immediate devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the estimated 350,000 who ultimately died of burns, radiation, and related causes. The debate still persists whether the United States was justified in the first and only use of atomic weapons. Some claim it was avoidable. Others, citing the 17 million people killed by the Japanese during the war, hold that the act was just.

What's indisputable about Hiroshima is we did it. We killed civilians, non-combatants, unarmed women, children, and men. What's also indisputable is that every regime - the Nazis, the Communist Chinese, the Cambodians, the Americans - all had their reasons. Like Pol Pot, each firmly believed what they did was "just."

Even closer to home, the United States seems to be breeding a generation of monsters. Pamela Smart, a New Hampshire school teacher, induces her 15-year-old lover and two of his friends to kill her husband, because murder would be more convenient than divorce. The three boys carry out the crime. The adolescent lover does it because he's captivated by her. But why did the other two boys go along? Were they just being loyal to a friend? Did they think it would be fun? Was it for money? What was their compelling motive?

In Denver, a white, 19-year-old "skinhead" for no apparent reason shoots a black man at a bus stop and then shoots a white nurse who comes to his aid. In an interview, the young offender explained, "He [the victim] really didn't belong where he was, and I thought how easy it would be for me to take him out."

The litany of such cases is endless. Even though these events are far from typical, still the fact they are pervasive and persistent tells us something about America today. We breed monsters. Many, many monsters. And that is the case even now, even in the 21st Century, even after six millennia of civilization, even after the lessons of two World Wars.

So, there is little reason for optimism that decency will ultimately prevail. On the contrary, there is very much evidence that civilization is a thin veneer, as Golding indicated in Lord of the Flies; that essentially, people are fearful and cruel and hateful by nature; or, at best, indifferent.

On the other hand, the _ideal_ of goodness, however variously interpreted, is also undeniable. We have a capacity for goodness. The Raul Wallenbergs, the Oscar Schindlers, the Mother Theresas are exemplars of what less illustrious, more ordinary people accomplish every day. These include the brave rescuers who plunge into roiling waters or burning buildings to save the lives of strangers. These include the volunteers who spend days searching for missing children; the good Samaritan who jumps onto the subway tracks to rescue someone who fell; the patrolman who jeopardizes his own life to stop a terrorist. Goodness is a fact.

Goodness can also be an institution. It's in our Bill of Rights, in the Nobel Peace Prize, the United Nations, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders.

While evil proliferates in the world, we must not forget that so does good. The strength and prevalence of evil does not negate the idea that God is good. No more than does the prevalence of ignorance negate the idea that God is wise; or the prevalence of weakness, that God is strong. God is greater than man. Just because God is strong and wise and good, doesn't mean we are. Just because we aren't, doesn't mean He isn't. Man has the opportunity to aspire to be more like God. Man has the capacity to become more strong, more wise, and more good. This is a capacity denied to lesser animals. They can't make themselves any better than they are. But we can. If we do, if we ultimately manage to climb out of our darkness, then the God that we worship can be our light.

B. Evidence for God as Good

Omnipotence ultimately implies goodness. Or, is it the other way around? We have deduced goodness from a chain of logic running from omnipotence to omniscience to immanence. In effect, we are saying might makes right. But perhaps the opposite is the case. Perhaps, right makes might, instead.

What do we mean by goodness? In the West, thanks to Aristotle, we seem to mean three things: ethics, physics, and esthetics. Ethics pertains to human behavior, wherein goodness equals morality. Physics pertains to material behavior, wherein goodness equals functionality. Esthetics pertains to perception, wherein goodness equals pleasure.

So, we can say, "He is a good man," "This is a good car," and "That is good food," and mean three quite different things. But all three forms of goodness have something in common: balance. Aristotle called it the "Golden Mean." This is the state achieved when every element in an entity is adapted to every other element; and when the entity itself is adapted to its environment. Under such conditions, things are functional, because everything works in harmony. Perceptions are pleasurable, because harmony is appealing. Behaviors are moral, because harmony attunes us to each other.

Balance can be measured mathematically, because it is based on proportionality. Thus, goodness, in any form, can be objectively determined. It can be empirically measured just as mechanics can measure the balance of a tire, or plastic surgeons can measure the proportions of a beautiful face.

The presence of harmony and balance in the Cosmos is no accident. It is based on an underlying principle physicists refer to as "symmetry." Indeed, according to Brian Greene, professor of physics at Columbia, "Symmetry underlies the laws of the Universe" (219).

Symmetry is what makes the Universe work. The balance of matter and anti-matter, the notion that every particle has an anti-particle, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction; the balance between gravity and the expansion of the Universe; the conservation of matter and energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed; the minutely calibrated balance of forces and particles. These all delineate the fundamental boundaries of the physical Universe.

In its most extreme form, symmetry means sameness. For example, a sphere is perfectly symmetrical, because any point on the sphere is exactly the same as any other. Likewise, a liquid is more symmetrical than a solid, and a gas is more symmetrical than a liquid. The atoms and molecules are distributed more evenly. It is presumed that at the instant of the Big Bang, our Universe was perfectly symmetrical in just such a way. Later, as it cooled and hardened, some of that symmetry was "broken."

However, the fundamental laws that govern our Universe remain symmetrical, because they stay the same wherever you go. The laws of gravity, the speed of light, the polarities of electromagnetism are exactly the same in the Andromeda galaxy as they are here in the Milky Way. Even though the conditions may vary drastically from one place to another – the mass of Jupiter, for example, is vastly greater than that of the Earth – nevertheless, the laws of nature remain exactly the same.

For instance, gravity will always equal mass divided by distance (Einstein noted). If the mass is great and the distance is short, gravity will be strong. If the mass is slight and the distance is far, gravity will be weak. Any change in one side of the equation results in a corresponding change in the other. The variations balance each other out, and the fundamental equation remains the same.

The principle of symmetry prescribes a Universe of balance and harmony, which form the basis for all kinds of goodness. The balance of esthetics, ethics, and physics is one. Human behavior is, after all, just another kind of behavior. Just as the engine of a car works when all its parts act in harmony with each other, the same holds true for human society. When Jefferson wrote, "All men are created equal," he was talking about human symmetry.

When that human symmetry is disrupted, the Universe compels us to fix it. Slavery, for example, is an egregious imbalance in the pleasure derived by some from the suffering of others. It is unjust. As such, it is a condition that cannot last. The same thing happens when one country invades another and subdues the conquered population. Likewise, when one person steals from another and takes something that isn't rightfully his. In everyday life we have formal contracts to balance the rights of parties, and we have informal courtesies as a way of showing mutual respect.

The scales of justice are a calibrating device for human behavior, but they work much like the tire balancing machine in the auto shop. The principles of goodness that applied to material objects before humans ever appeared on the face of the Earth, continue to apply in exactly the same way to interaction among people now that we have emerged on the scene.

We might therefore conclude right makes might. Right, goodness, balance, symmetry, harmony are synonymous terms for what makes things work, what makes art beautiful, and what makes people good. If the Universe were to fall out of balance, it would collapse. If one violin plays out of sync with the rest, the result is discord. If one person treats another unfairly, the result is injustice. Imbalance creates dysfunction.

The Universe, of course, is dynamic. Galaxies are rushing away from each other at tremendous speeds. Not every instrument in the orchestra plays the same tune. And nations are constantly at war. Things are forever in the process of coming unbalanced, and finding a new equilibrium. Balance is not synonymous with uniformity. On the contrary, imbalance in a lower order often supports balance in a higher order. That's how ecology works. Few things are static. Big fish eat little fish. Old trees dry out and burn, making room for new growth coming in behind them. Children rebel against parents in the process of becoming mature. A completely static, completely uniform system would soon fall out of balance with its wider environment.

It is for this reason that the greatest good can only be understood from the perspective of the highest order - the widest space and the longest time. At those levels, goodness is a comprehensive and comprehensible whole. Goodness is one. We are wrapped in it, and because of it, we exist.

We call that highest level of symmetry "order." We may as well call it "God." For that reason, the more we understand about the order of the Universe, the more we come to understand God. Thus, while omnipotence may be God's main defining feature, it may not be His fundamental attribute. We cannot define a being as God unless He is all powerful. But no being could be all powerful unless He were perfectly good.

Conclusion of Part II

Knowledge is power. Omnipotence cannot exist without omniscience. The two go hand in hand. Without will, without knowledge, without consciousness, God cannot be God.

The exercise of power requires will. If the present Universe were not the result of a willful intent, there are only two alternatives: accident and evolution. We clearly do not live in a world governed by accident. But perhaps we evolved over billions of years through processes of selective adaptation. The problem, however, is that this evolution did not occur in a vacuum. It was directed and controlled by fundamental laws; laws which were established at the beginning of time. Where did they come from? The best we can say is: from a _supernatural_ source. Why supernatural? Because at the instant of the Big Bang, the laws of science and nature did not apply. So, the laws of nature are the best evidence we have of God's will.

In the exercise of His will, God must have absolute knowledge. Only absolute knowledge can assure absolute power. But will and knowledge are not enough. The Universe must also be conscious. Without consciousness, one cannot be self-directed. One cannot have will. One cannot have power.

Moreover, it is consciousness that validates reality. Human consciousness is our best evidence that the Cosmos is capable of self-awareness. But long before the appearance of humans on Earth, for billions of years, the reality of the Universe was either unknown and unproven or validated by a higher consciousness than our own.

At one extreme, Heisenberg, Bohr and Schrödinger tell us that any elementary particle – and therefore, even the Universe itself – _does not exist_ unless and until it is observed. But even short of that extreme, if the only observers are we humans, then the only reality the Universe can have is the subjective reality we assign to it. It has no independent, "objective" reality unless it is aware of itself.

Certainly, God's reality must be intrinsic. It cannot rely on our understanding of it. If that were so, then God could not be God. To be omnipotent, He must be self-aware. And the fact that humans are self-aware must mean that capacity was present in the Universe from the moment of creation. Consciousness has always been inherent in our Universe, either in prospect or in fact.

To be fully conscious and omniscient, God must be immanent. He must be in all things at all times. He is a universal Being. What is the alternative? That He is separate and apart from us? That He lives somewhere else and watches us from afar? That He is an anthropomorphic Being like Zeus or Odin? Such a notion is a bit absurd. Rather, we see God's grandeur all around us. He is a part of everything there is, including ourselves. To be omniscient and omnipotent, He must be.

What evidence is there for God's immanence? The substance of the Universe is pure energy. It is that from which everything else is formed. We may appear in many different shapes and sizes, but in essence we are all one thing. That substance is immanent in us all.

Moreover, it is that energy inside of us that makes us aware. Without it, we are dead. But with it, we live, we breathe, we think. Indeed, our brains consume more energy than any other part of our bodies. Now to be clear, I am not talking about some spiritual or mystical force. I am rather talking about the same energy that makes plants grow, animals roam, and galaxies spin. To us, it has given mastery of our world.

If God is immanent, then He must be good. Being a part of us, His interests are aligned with our own. He knows us better than we do. Indeed, He knows what is best for us even when we may not know it ourselves. We humans may be ignorant; we may be evil. But the God inside all of us offers the perpetual promise of redemption.

Some argue that the existence of evil in the world means God cannot be good. But do we say the existence of weakness means God cannot be powerful; or the existence of ignorance means God cannot be wise? Man is imperfect. God is not.

Moreover, if we define the good as the best, and anything that isn't good as less than the best, then God must be good. Being both omnipotent and omniscient, He cannot be fallible. If we define evil as a failure to be good, God cannot fail.

Goodness is a form of symmetry. And symmetry is a basic principle – some would say _the_ basic principle - of our Universe. It is what makes things work both in mechanics, and in human relations. The phrase "all men are created equal" embodies this basic truth.

In that sense, right makes might. At the highest level, symmetry corresponds with order. And that order governs all existence.

In sum, God must be willful, omniscient, conscious, immanent, and good. These are His personal, as opposed to His objective features. Logically, He cannot be omnipotent, without these features. And without omnipotence, He cannot be God. And now that we've defined what God's features _must_ be, the question is do we see any evidence such a Being exists.

I would argue that we do. God is all around us, in plain sight. He is bounded by the speed of light, at one extreme, and the gravity of black holes, at the other. In both cases, time stops and space collapses. In between these extremes lies an all-pervasive energy employing the forces of nature to regulate our lives and all existence with mathematical precision according to the principle of symmetry.

The forces of nature include, of course, electro-magnetism, the strong force, the weak force, and gravity. But they also include the strongest force compelling human behavior, love. Add to that the mysterious dark energy, comprising 75% of the Universe. These forces attest to God's goodness, His immanence, His omniscience, and His will. The question remains about His consciousness. Is it enough to say that the proof lies in the basic form, and nature of the Universe, which is so conducive to consciousness that it produced us?

In the next sections we examine scientific evidence in more detail, and focus in on the ultimate question: the Universal Mind.

PART III. PHYSICS

Aristotle divided the study of reality into physics and metaphysics. But why? Why should there be a spirit world? Why does God need to abide outside of, and apart from, the Universe? Why not contend (like the Deists) that God _is_ the Universe, and that the Universe _is_ God. Such a God would be both omniscient and omnipotent. And, in order for God to be God, He must be omniscient and omnipotent. There should be no distinction between physics and metaphysics. There need only be physics. Here is where the key to finding and understanding God must lie. Let us, therefore, now turn to some of the major and current views in physics for the origins and composition of our physical Universe.

Section One. Quantum Mechanics

A. The Concept of Quantum Mechanics

Several of the scientific theories set forth above are based on quantum mechanics. Ironically, this branch of physics began with an observation by Albert Einstein, who vigorously opposed it later on. Until Einstein, it was thought that light was composed of waves. Thus, when a beam of light is passed through a barrier with two slits, A and B, you might expect it to show up as two separate lines on photographic paper capturing the light on the other side of the barrier. Strangely enough, however, several lines of light appear. The effect looks something like this: |||||||||||. How is this possible? How could light passing through two openings create a series of lines and spaces? The answer could only be that light travels in waves of peaks and troughs. When a wave from slit A and a wave from slit B coincide, their peaks reinforce each other, creating a white line. When the waves do not coincide, however, and a trough from A cancels out a peak from B, black space appears. The result is a large number of alternating lines and spaces, as the waves from A and B either reinforce each other or cancel each other out all along the photographic paper. This is known as the "double slit" experiment, and it established that light travels in waves.

Curiously, even when photons were passed through the slits one at a time, the "interference pattern" typical of waves continued to appear. This reinforced the notion that light is a wave. However, when detectors were placed next to both slits, so that experimenters would see which slit the light passed through, then only two lines appeared on the photographic plate. In other words, light behaved like particles rather than waves when its location was observed.

In the early 1900s, moreover, a separate experiment resulted in the discovery of the "photo-electric effect." A light beam, directed onto a metallic substance in a vacuum, knocks electrons from the metal. What is strange is that the brightness of the light does not make any difference in the amount of energy transferred to the escaping electrons. True, as the brightness increases, more electrons are dislodged. But the amount of energy imparted to any particular electron does not increase. The only thing that effects the electron's energy is the frequency of the light, not its brightness. High frequency blue light, for example, creates a stronger impact than low frequency red light. It is like a pool ball being hit by a cue ball. A lot of cue balls might hit a lot of pool balls. But only a very energetic cue ball would hit any particular pool ball _hard_. From this Einstein concluded that energy is being delivered in discrete bits \- or hits. The light beam must, therefore, consist of separate packets, or "quanta," also known as "photons."

Thus was born the physics of "quantum" mechanics (Rae 7-8). Subsequent experiments established that sometimes light behaves like a wave, and sometimes like a particle. And what makes the difference is how it is being observed. If we try to observe which slit light is passing through in the double slit experiment, then it will appear as a particle. If, on the other hand, we focus on the pattern the light forms on the photographic paper, then it will appear as a wave. We cannot do both at the same time. We can either observe light's properties as a particle or as a wave. But we can never observe both at the same time. What we see depends on how we look.

Werner Heisenberg translated this paradox into the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle." He equated the location of the particle through one slit or the other as its position. He equated the wave pattern of the light on the photo paper as its momentum. And thus, he concluded we can either know the position of the light or its momentum, but we could never know both at the same time. One of light's properties must always remain uncertain.

Later experiments discovered the same results with electrons, and even with substances as large as "Bucky balls." These are mega- molecules of 60 carbon atoms. Both matter and energy particles posed the same dilemma.

By extension, this suggests that the Universe itself can never be completely knowable or predictable. If it is impossible to know with certainty both the position and momentum of the most fundamental components of reality, then everything else based on those components must remain equally inscrutable. It means we can never have perfect knowledge of the state of the Universe. It must always remain "uncertain."

B. Quantum Mechanics and God

To Einstein, this was blasphemy. His science was based on perfect knowledge of everything. Ultimately, he felt, with enough understanding, with enough knowledge we should be able to comprehend how the Universe works to perfection. He summed up this view with the aphorism, "God does not play dice with the Universe." Thus, quantum mechanics would appear to undermine the concept of God.

Section Two. Chaos Theory

A. Quantum Mechanics versus Chaos

Quantum mechanics would seem to contradict the concept of God in exactly the way Einstein stated. If the Universe is fundamentally unpredictable, then there is no necessary order or pattern to nature. Everything that exists is a result of chance.

Moreover, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the parable of Schrödinger's cat, cited earlier, have lead some quantum theorists to conclude that we live in a world where everything is subjective. That is, the only reality is inside our heads. What we observe is real to us, but it may not be real to anyone else, and it certainly has no objective reality of its own.

A Russian physicist Ilya Prigogine, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1977, however, turns the notion of unpredictability on its head. He agrees that the world is _unpredictable_ , but maintains that it is _objectively real_. It is objectively real precisely _because_ it is unpredictable. And his assertion is based on the fact that time is real.

The reality of time is grounded in the concept of "irreversibility" (19). In classical Newtonian physics, "time symmetry" prevails. What this means is that in any given cause and effect, if you knew the exact identity, location and momentum of every particle resulting in the effect, you could reverse the action and wind up with the original state of things that brought about the cause. Thus, the end state and the beginning state exactly balance each other off. They are symmetrical. And from a purely physics point of view, time is not relevant. It is not real.

But Prigogine argues that the inherent instability of the Universe breaks time symmetry. In the case of entropy, for example, the disorder created over time can never be completely reversed. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Burned wood can never be restored to its original state. Radioactive decay can never be undone. Hurtful insults can never be unsaid. In any event, time is both relevant and real. Even in physics, the arrow of time matters.

There is also the case of the "butterfly effect." A single butterfly flapping its wings in Argentina may not cause a tornado in Florida, but it may actually alter the course of that tornado; hence, the name "chaos theory." It means tiny, often unpredictable events can alter the future.

Consider, for example, a pendulum. Normally, it swings back and forth, but with a little extra push, it can swing all the way around in a circle. The difference in the amount of pressure making it do this must be very slight. At the threshold, the dividing point between arc pressure and circle pressure must be minute. And so, it is in any physical system buffeted by a multiplicity of particles and forces.

This effect is known as "strong mixing." It refers to the fact that any small change in the starting conditions of a system can drastically alter its future behavior (Rae, 2004, 122). And once that behavior is altered, it cannot be reversed. It is a fact, an objective, reliable, and irreversible fact. And that fact exists regardless of any particular individual's interpretation of it. The problem with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Prigogine argues, is that it looks at light in isolation. As soon as an observer is added to the equation, then the status of the light as either particle or wave is resolved.

But the fact is humans are not the only measuring instruments around. Anything impacted by the light, such as other particles for instance, register the state of the light and therefore provide a form of measurement. Particles and molecules and rocks and humans are unavoidably stirring up the world around them every time they move. All of these subsequent reactions are the functional equivalent of a human observer. Any reaction is a measurement of an action.

Chaos theory stands in opposition to time symmetry. In the latter view, once the initial conditions of a system are given, then everything following is pre-determined. But chaos theory says that unexpected events often occur. And when they do, exact predictions about the future fly out the window. As Prigogine writes, "In accepting that the future is not determined, we come to the end of certainty" (183). The best we can do is gauge the probability of certain outcomes. But rarely can we be absolutely sure.

In the real world, as Prigogine notes, nothing really exists in isolation. The larger the system, the less isolated are its component elements. As Prigogine states, "...we cannot take a part of the system and consider it in isolation. It is at this global level, at the level of populations, that the symmetry between past and future is most broken, and science can recognize the flow of time" (45).

B. Chaos Theory and Morality

Prigogine and Heisenberg both agree that the future is unpredictable. In that regard, they both part ways with classical physics. But in Heisenberg's view, the future is unpredictable because it is based on point of view, or subjectivity. Hence it is not only unpredictable but potentially unreal. In Prigogine's view, it is unpredictable precisely because time is real, time matters, and if time is real, then the future and the present are objectively real, as well.

If the Universe is objectively real, then God can be real too. But how do we reconcile God with unpredictability, with chaos? It is because the fundamental laws of the Universe remain. Einstein was correct. God does not play dice with the Universe. Those dice will always land down in the presence of gravity. They will not fly off into space. The electrons in the dice will always be attracted to their protons. The protons will always stick together.

The Universe is not _fundamentally_ chaotic. The sun rises every morning and sets every night. Within that context, however, unexpected events do occur. Such events, as Prigogine tells us, validate the significance of time. Time matters.

Moreover, God may be good, but bad things may still take place within His Universe. Consider what a completely pre-determined Universe would look like. It would look like a computer program. We would look like automatons. And while having the appearance of life, while having the appearance of spontaneity, while having the appearance of existential reality, it would, in fact, be entirely scripted. Time would not matter, because everything would be pre-determined beforehand. Life would not matter.

Finally, in a non-deterministic Universe, prayer matters. If the flapping of butterfly wings in Argentina can influence tornadoes in Florida, then certainly something as powerful as a prayer can also have resonance. If the Universe is a single entity, and that entity is conscious and intelligent, then the concerted supplication of any part of that entity may well make a difference between one outcome versus another.

Section Three. The "God Particle"

A. The Higgs Boson.

On July 4, 2012, scientists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Cern, Switzerland announced they had discovered evidence for the elusive "Higgs Boson," for which physicists had been searching over the past 50 years. Originally hypothesized by the British physicist Peter Higgs, the Higgs Boson is the particle associated with the Higgs field. Fields are areas of energy, such as a magnetic field or an electric field or a gravitational field. Anything which falls into the ambit of the field is affected by its energy. Hence a compass within Earth's magnetic field would point north, but a compass outside that field would not.

All fields have associated particles. The photon, for instance, is the particle associated with both the electric field and the magnetic field. One can picture these particles not so much as solid things, but as "perturbations" within the field. Thus, the primary importance of the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle is that it lends credence to the existence of the Higgs field.

What, then, is the Higgs field? It is supposed to be an invisible force field that permeates all of space (Close, p. 353). It is everywhere. And it explains mass. Why do some subatomic particles have mass and others do not? Photons, gluons, and, presumably, gravitons have zero mass. Electrons, quarks, and weak gauge bosons have mass. Thus, protons and neutrons, which are made up of quarks, also have mass. And thus atoms, made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons; plus, molecules, made up of atoms, also have mass. As a result, every solid object we perceive in the Universe, from stars to human beings, all made up of molecules, have mass as well.

Everything that has mass, everything with weight, everything we consider a "thing" is therefore the product of the rather wondrous, mysterious, and elusive Higgs field. That is why it has been nicknamed "The God particle." But how does it work? The answer is that the Higgs field clusters around some particles, but not others. Metaphorically, it has been compared to an ocean of molasses.

Another comparison is a room full of party-goers. Originally, they may be spread all around the room. But if a celebrity - a famous movie star - enters the room, the party goers will converge around that famous personage, and consequently slow him down. Non-celebrities will be able to pass through the room unimpeded, as if they were massless. But the celebrities will be slowed down by the cluster of fans around them. The pressure they must exert to move forward against this cluster gives them the appearance of mass. Analogously, that is how the Higgs field lends weight to celebrity particles, such as electrons and quarks.

It is noteworthy that in this description, no particles - or perturbations - are considered to have intrinsic mass. In effect, there is no such thing as a thing. The appearance \- one might say the illusion - of mass only comes about because of the interaction of two force fields against each other.

B. The Higgs Boson and God

The Higgs field, if it exists, neither supports or undermines the concept of God. It simply explains mass. Calling the Higgs boson the "God particle" doesn't mean it's a substitute for God. On the contrary, the idea that the entire Universe is permeated by a force field suggests the unity, the oneness of the Cosmos. The idea that nothing has intrinsic mass, or solidness, per se, but that the solidness we perceive is rather the result of the press of force fields, this concept further reinforces the view that everything is connected. It suggests we live in a world not of isolated "things," not of solid entities, separated by space. It suggests we live in an energy world, permeated, end to end, by forces; and that these forces are in a constant and ever shifting state of interaction with each other. As Smolin puts it,

"No longer are there absolute 'elementary' particles; everything that behaves like a particle is, to some extent, an emergent consequence of a network of interactions" (Time Reborn xxx).

In such a Cosmos, where everything is one and everything is connected, the possibility of universal consciousness seems more likely. If we exist within a spider's web of entangled filaments, any movement anywhere is detected and registered throughout the whole.

Section Four. The Multiverse

A. The Concept of the Multiverse

In his book Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life is the Architect of the Universe, James Gardner propounded a theory of "survival of the fittest" at the cosmic level. His argument is that the Universe is so congenial to the emergence of life, it must be more than a coincidence. If the force of the Big Bang were slightly greater or less, the Universe would not exist. If the electro-magnetic force were a tiny bit stronger, we would not be here. If the mass of the Universe were slightly denser, it would collapse. Without three-dimensional space, or without the prevalence of carbon, life could not exist. The design of our Universe is so exceedingly fine-tuned to life it suggests the Cosmos were created for that express purpose. Gardner has two explanations.

First, he believes the inhabitants of a prior Universe evolved to the point where they could create a new one suited to the propagation of their species. In the alternative, he postulates a "closed time curve," in which the Universe serves as its own mother. In other words, intelligence evolves to the point of self-realization, at which point we create ourselves.

Lee Smolin a Professor of Physics at Waterloo University has a similar, but slightly different take. He also believes our Universe is the product of Darwinian evolution. Instead of being created on purpose by intelligent beings, it is rather the product of survival of the fittest. He believes that black holes collapse into singularities. But instead of disappearing into a well of infinite non-existence, they approach that point and then bounce back. In that way they retain information from their parent Universe and, like children everywhere, re-emerge in their parent's image.

Most Universes, according to Smolin, are short-lived and die off. But those Universes with just the right ingredients to survive, live to propagate more like themselves. And the factors which are conducive to universal survival and to the propagation of their own kind, such as an abundance of black holes (to breed more young), three-dimensional space, a large number of stars and galaxies, prevalent carbon and oxygen, and, especially, a lifespan stretching into the tens of billions of years, are exactly the factors conducive to life.

Oddly, even back in the 1800's, the philosopher Hume expressed a similar thought:

"...were this world ever so perfect a production, it must still remain uncertain whether all the excellences of the work can justly be ascribed to the workman...Many worlds might have been botched, bungled, throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out..." (Runzo 153).

According to Smolin's theory, black holes may be the portals through which new Universes are spawned. The extreme gravity of a black hole stops time and collapses space. The usual metaphor for Einstein's view of gravity is that spacetime is like a "fabric." A heavy object on this fabric makes it "warped," like a bowling ball on a rubber sheet. Anything moving on the sheet near the object travels along the indentation the object has made. Black holes are objects so dense and so heavy that they not only indent, but actually tear a hole through the fabric of space and time. Anything traveling past the event horizon of a black hole falls out of our space and our time altogether. It emerges, Smolin speculates, into a new space and time, altogether.

Many galaxies, such as the Milky Way, have massive black holes at their center. Stars and other matter are in a continuous process of being pulled toward this void and then sucked into it, never to reappear. Besides Smolin, other cosmologists have speculated that black holes may be portals into other Universes, causing their own singularities, taking matter out of the space and time of our known Universe, and blasting it into another.

B. The Multiverse and God

There are three problems with Multiverse theory. First, it can neither be tested or proven. If there are other universes besides our own, they exist in a separate time and space from ours. We can't observe them.

Second even if black holes did create a portal from one universe to another, the first universe would be so completely eviscerated, that it could not conceivably retain any information from its previous life.

Third, Multiverse theory violates the law of parsimony. Far from being the simplest explanation for creation it is the most complicated. It requires an almost infinite amount of time, and an almost infinite number of universes, before finally coming up with exactly the right formula to support life. The concept of a single Creator for a single Universe may seem far-fetched, but it does have the advantage of simplicity.

Now, some may argue that Darwinian evolution theory suffers from the same disadvantages. But that is emphatically not true. In biology, evolution can occur rather quickly, over thousands or even hundreds of years. The reason for that is because of adaptation to the existing environment. In Multiverse theory, on the other hand, there is _no environment_ to adapt to. The emergence of a life-friendly universe, therefore, is an entirely random event. By contrast the concept of a single, all-powerful Creator looks pretty good.

Section Five. The Second Law

A. P.W. Atkins and The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Entropy

A leading critic of String Theory, the Oxford physicist P.W. Atkins (The Creation) has an entirely different view for how the Universe was created and why it persists. Like Thoreau, he adheres to the dictum of "Simplify, simplify, simplify." And to him, everything in the Universe, from the instant of creation to the ultimate rise of human consciousness, can be explained in the simplest possible terms and without any need for divine intervention.

Take, for example, why light travels in straight lines. The answer is because it's the simplest and most direct thing for light to do. Because light propagates waves, and because waves have peaks and troughs, the peaks and troughs tend to cancel each other out, except in a straight line. So, when we observe light obeying what appears to be a universal law, it is simply following the easiest thing for it to do (47).

Or, for example, why is the speed of the light the same for all observers? Very simple, says Atkins. The speed of light is simply a conversion factor, like the formula for converting Fahrenheit to Centigrade. So, while distance may vary from observer to observer, and time may vary according to one's perspective, the formula for expressing distance in terms of time and vice versa will always stay the same.

His task, Atkins asserts, is to demonstrate "the absolute zero of creative involvement in the creation..." (9). If he succeeds, he reasons, there's no need to resort to a Creator. Without any role to play either in the origin or the evolution of the Universe, God, and the concept of God are irrelevant. And why not believe in the hand of God in the evolution of the Universe? "We shall see," Atkins states, "that all the events around and inside us have the same motivation: they are driven by a purposeless collapse into chaos" (17). In other words, the ultimate driver of all events, following the creation, is entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

But if entropy is the driving dynamic of the Universe, then that suggests an original, even a perfect order, to begin with. Otherwise, from what does the disorder proceed? And if the Universe began in a state of perfect order, then must there not have been a Creator? Not so, argues Victor Stenger (121). The earliest definable moment of time is Planck time, or 10-43 seconds. At that point, within a black hole of space, there need have been "no original order" whatsoever. How then entropy? The answer, says Stenger, is that the Universe rapidly expanded from that original singularity, and as the Universe grew, so did the entropy within it. Thus, the total amount of entropy could in fact increase, even if the Universe began in a state of complete disorder. So, Stenger concludes, "Thus, the Universe began with no structure" (121), and "the Creator, if he existed, left no imprint" (121).

The behavior of all things, Atkins says, is determined by their nature, not by divine intervention. Hence there is no need for rules or laws. In particular, it is in the nature of all things to move towards "an underlying collapse into chaos" (21). This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's what drives all change in the Cosmos. It is the nature of energy to disperse. Heat goes to cold. The dispersal of energy within close confining spaces may give the illusion of purpose, but only temporarily. As Shelly noted in "Ozymandias," eventually everything comes apart.

The temporary and ephemeral coalescence of people into empires, living cells into people, and elements into cells is, in turn, the inevitable outcome of the way atoms and molecules are constructed. They are "frail" but not "floppy." Atoms, for example, are 99.99999% empty space. Indeed, if all the quarks (protons and neutrons) and leptons (electrons and positrons) of the entire Earth were squished together into a ball, they would occupy an area smaller than a molecule, because basically quarks and leptons have "no size and no mass" (Cayler, 2003). If an atomic nucleus were the size of a man, the surrounding shell of electrons would form a sphere 100 kilometers around it (11). So, it is easy for such loosely bound structures to bump into each other and stick together for a while. It is also easy for them to come apart. The rise and fall of all matter in the Universe is the result.

Thus, Atkins sees no role for God in the evolution of the Universe. Things simply happen according to their nature. And were it not for our three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, there would be no matter, no energy, and no causality, to begin with. There would be no things at all. As earlier noted, atoms could not exist without three dimensions of space. Any less and they would have no bulk. Any more and they would come apart. "Three dimensions of space is the minimum for existence and the maximum for persistence" (87).

Also, more than one dimension of time would make causality impossible. It would undermine the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Things could always be occurring and not occurring, dispersing and simultaneously coming together. With two dimensions of time, it would be possible to go backwards into the past; it would be possible to reverse entropy and to undo the "knots," of which all matter is formed (91).

So, as Atkins maintains, our Universe exists because it is the _only kind of Universe that could exist_. Three dimensions of space and one of time make matter, energy and causality possible. And the nature of matter, energy, and causality lead inexorably toward entropy and chaos, but on the way toward their ultimate collapse and decay, they temporarily form elements, cells, animals, human consciousness, civilization, and empire.

To reiterate, Atkins maintains our Universe looks the ways it does, because it is the only kind of Universe that could endure. All evolution within the Universe, including us, is the inevitable result of the kind of Universe we have. Thus, no need for a God.

As Atkins writes, "...molecules equipped for competition, survival, and reproduction are also devoid of significance. It is undeniable that they can emerge given the right mixture of ingredients, a stable warm platform, and time" (3).

Creation

But what about the creation of the Universe in the first place? How does Atkins explain that? Here's what he says: In the beginning there was nothing. Then, there was a "fluctuation." "By chance there was a fluctuation, and a set of points, emerging from nothing and taking their existence from the pattern they formed, defined a time" (119). Through fluctuation, _nothing_ separated into binary opposites (109); for example, matter and anti-matter; positive energy and negative energy. "We can think of an anti-particle as its particle counterpart traveling backwards in time" (111). Hence, "...the Universe comes into existence through self-reference...time separates them [particle and anti-particle], distinguishes them, and induces them from nothing" (111).

Now, if you were to add up all these opposites, the result would still be zero, nothing. All matter is basically frozen energy. Energy can be positive or negative. Electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force are positive. Gravity is negative. Add up all the positive and negative energy in the Universe, and the result is zero. The positive and negative cancel each other out. So, in effect, we never did get something from nothing. We just wound up with a different form of nothing.

Quarks and "leptons" (electrons and positrons) appear to be the "points" that Atkins refers to. They themselves, according to Atkins, "appear to" have zero dimension, zero size and zero mass (actually, most physicists would say "nearly" zero). As such, they are the most fundamental of all things, having no internal structure to further subdivide. They are, rather, points, or locations, in space. And it is no coincidence that it takes three of them to form either a proton or a neutron. They are the three dimensions of space (122).

As such, by virtue of their location relative to each other, these three points in space form three dimensional "knots" in spacetime. This is what the elementary particles are (87). We experience those knots as matter. But they are really the twisting of spacetime; "...matter and energy are spacetime..." (95). Gravity, therefore, is not a separate force, but rather the warping caused by the knots (87).

Now, there may not have been just one fluctuation. There may have been trillions, quadrillions. Some resulted in one dimensional Universes. Others in eleven-dimension Universes. Some had two dimensions of time. Some had tightly clustered atoms, that could never have assembled themselves into molecules. Some had stronger gravity, which led them to immediately collapse. Some had weaker gravity, which led them to immediately disperse. But none of these alternate Universes had the right ingredients to survive. Purely by accident, ours did. And so, we alone endure. Just as viruses form successful mutations by first trying out billions upon billions of combinations, just so, our Universe was born. It was a case of survival of the fittest at the cosmic level.

Stephen Hawking basically agrees (The Grand Design). Because at the quantum level elementary particles can appear and then disappear spontaneously, there is really no such thing as "nothing." There is quantum activity even within a "perfect" vacuum. And where there is no time and no space, anything at all, even the most infinitesimal event, can be everything.

B. The Second Law and God

Atheism and Creation

This, then, is Atkins' defense of atheism. And it comes closest to what many men of science, such as Stephen Hawking, either secretly or openly believe. But in my opinion, it has at least three problematic arguments:

The first is the concept of a "fluctuation." I take the term "nothing" very literally. It is the _total absence_ of anything: matter, energy, time, or space. So, how can nothing "fluctuate"? True. Quantum fluctuations do occur. But they have only been observed within the context of time and space; in other words, within the context of _something_ ; not within the context of nothing. As Owen Gingerich puts it, "What exactly is fluctuating if there really is nothing there to begin with" (123)?

The second problem, I think, is the sudden conversion of absolute nothing into a balancing set of somethings and anti-somethings, of 1's and -1's. And if, as Atkins claims, -1 is a result of going backwards in time, how can this happen? First of all, the arrow of time only points in one direction - forwards. Second, how can you go backwards in time when time itself doesn't yet exist?

The third problem is that Atkins' argument relies on a version of Multiverse theory. He states there may have been trillions or quadrillions of attempts to come up with our accommodating Universe. Such a theory, as previously noted, is the opposite of parsimonious.

Atheism and Entropy

I would disagree with Atkins in this regard. Entropy is only half the story. The other half of the story is order, combination, and complexity. And even as entropy has increased over time, so, too, has complexity. And this is undeniable. Over time, the Universe is making itself more and more complex, more and more self-aware, more and more actualized. In effect, there is a Creator, contrary to what Atkins contends. The Universe is creating itself.

As Atkins himself acknowledges, "intelligent, self-conscious life was bound eventually to appear..." (Brummer), because there is an inherent, inbuilt potentiality for it in the physical Universe. So, entropy is not the whole story. Even as energy is dispersing, evolution is advancing. So far, at least, the forces of order appear to be outweighing the forces of chaos.

To state, as Atkins does, that there is no need for a Creator, because everything is driven by its nature, is to beg the question – _how did it get that nature_? If the only answer is it happened by chance through the birth of quadrillions of universes, then that answer is unsatisfactory.

Section Six. String Theory

A. The Concept of String Theory

A new theory of everything emerged in the second half of the twentieth century. While not adopted by the majority of the physics community, it attracted such a large number of adherents that it is today a respectable part of the curriculum of every major university in the U.S. The basic idea of String Theory is that everything is made up of tiny loops of vibrating energy. Because these loops can vibrate in different ways like violin strings, they produce what appear to be different mass and energy "particles." In fact, however, there really are no particles. There are only vibrating bits of energy, which, like instruments in an orchestra, produce the symphony of the Cosmos.

What makes String Theory so attractive is that it has the potential to explain fundamental aspects of the Universe which particle physics cannot or does not do. For example, why are there sixteen different types of basic particles? Why are there electrons and quarks and neutrinos and muons and taus? The multiplicity of "basic," that is, irreducible particles, is an unexplained puzzlement. String Theory says there is really only one basic element, the vibrating loop. The range of possible ways loops can vibrate explains - mathematically explains - all the basic particles that we see. Moreover, string vibrations also explain the properties that these particles contain. For example, why is the electron mass .00054 of the proton mass? Why is the top quark 189 times the proton mass? Why does the tau have a weak charge of - ½? How can we account for the relative masses and charges that the basic particles appear to have? Before String Theory came along, we just had to accept these properties as a given, without any explanation.

String Theory also explains the difference between mass and energy particles - between electrons, quarks, and neutrinos, on the one hand, and gluons, gravitons, and photons, on the other. Mass particles represent vibrations at a higher frequency. Thus, as Einstein observed mass and energy really are the same. Both are reducible to a string.

Finally, String Theory explains something which in particle physics seems like an absurdity. In the traditional account of the Big Bang, everything in the Universe emerged from a point infinitely small; in other words, from nothing. But how can everything come from nothing? In String Theory, it is only necessary that the Universe be reducible to the size of a string, which is defined as one Planck length, or, a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter (10-33). This is so small that if an atom could expand to the size of the entire Universe, a string would be the size of a tree (Greene, 2005, 130). It is an inconceivably tiny expanse. But it is still not nothing.

So, the value of String Theory is that, at last, it gives us a unified theory of everything. It tells us there is something even more fundamental than what we thought were the "fundamental" particles of life - electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc. It reduces all things to one thing - the string, and all properties to one property - string vibration. It explains why mass and energy are interchangeable. It overcomes the absurdity, if not the impossibility, of everything emerging from nothing. And it is aesthetically elegant.

On the other hand, there are three major problems with String Theory. First, where did strings come from? In solving one problem, we create another. If quarks are the product of strings, then what caused strings? Second, String Theory requires eleven dimensions. The three dimensions of space and one dimension of time with which we are familiar are not sufficient to account for the range of vibrations which strings must achieve in order to account for everything. Thus, string theoreticians have had to posit an additional seven dimensions! This perplexing element of multidimensionality turns what started out as a theory of elegant simplicity into one of extraordinary complexity.

The Oxford physicist P.W. Atkins provides us with further reason for skepticism. In brief, he asserts that a Universe with more than three dimensions of space and one of time would be impossible. Here's why. All matter particles are basically "knots" (The Creation 71). They are entities with length, width, and depth. The length and width give them spatial extent on a two-dimensional plane, while the third dimension of depth makes it possible for contour to wind above, below, and around them. Hence, protons and neutrons are both made up of three quarks apiece. As defined by the three-point quarks, protons and neutrons occupy three dimensions of space. Now, any less than three dimensions of space, and the knotty aspect of matter would be impossible. On the other hand, any more than three dimensions of space, and the knots would come undone. They would dissolve into the other dimensions, and never be able to hold together. A Universe composed of matter requires three dimensions of space, nothing less and nothing more. The eleven dimensions called for to make String Theory work are therefore out of the question. But without those extra dimensions, String Theory is invalid.

The final objection to String Theory is - where's the proof? Almost by definition it is impossible for humans inhabiting a four-dimensional world to prove or disprove the existence of extra dimensions to which we have no access. Plus, strings themselves are so infinitely tiny it would require a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way to see them. In effect, they are unobservable. For the time being, therefore, String Theory must remain only a theory without even the possibility of proof.

However, it is a mathematically coherent and widely respected theory that offers a more basic explanation for the Universe than other theories in physics. Therefore, even in the absence of proof, let us consider how it applies to the present argument of evidence for God.

B. String Theory and God

String Theory is a strictly scientific explanation of the Universe. As such, it is agnostic. The concept of God is not a part of the theory. On the other hand, String Theory supports and extends the argument for omnipotence. 1) Even more than particle physics, String Theory maintains that there is one force behind all the forces we observe. Everything we see comes from that single, all powerful, force and is a manifestation of that force in different form. 2) That force is everywhere, and in all things. 3) That force is immortal. Even before the Big Bang, there was the string. The Universe did not emerge out of nothing. And even after the Big Crunch, if that is how the Universe ends, the string will remain.

String Theory extends the argument for omniscience. Everything that exists, that ever was or will be is part of a single, harmonious universal pattern of vibration. In effect, String Theory holds: there is a coherent musical score, and the Cosmos is the resulting symphony.

Section Seven. Supersymmetry

A. The Concept of Supersymmetry

Symmetry, according to Brian Greene, "underlies the laws of the Universe" (219). One example of perfect symmetry is the sphere. It is exactly the same at every location. P.W. Atkins refers to symmetry as, "The quantification of beauty" (Galileo's Finger, Table of Contents). Harmony and balance play a critical role in String Theory in the form of "supersymmetry."

The basic idea of symmetry is that the laws of physics are the same regardless of when or where they are observed. An astronaut on the moon and a motorist on the Earth are both constrained by the exact same physical laws, even though the differing conditions of the moon and the Earth produce different results. For example, gravity works the same on both terrestrial bodies, even though the smaller mass of the moon enables the astronaut to bounce around in the air. Einstein added the context of motion to the mix. So that not only space and time but also the speed at which one is traveling are subject to the symmetries of physics. Thus, all observers, regardless of their speed or acceleration are justified in considering themselves stationary and at rest, with everything around them being in a state of motion. Later physicists added the dimension of angle, so that regardless of one's angle of view, again the physical laws are the same.

Supersymmetry, however, attaches a fifth perspective beyond time, place, speed, or angle. Supersymmetry is associated with the concept of "spin." Back in 1925 the Dutch physicists George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Gouldsmit realized that certain puzzling magnetic properties of electrons could be explained by spin. They suggested that like the Earth, electrons not only revolve around their sun-like nuclei, but also rotate while they are doing it. Moreover, they concluded that all electrons in the Universe rotate at one fixed and unchanging rate. Later physicists expanded that notion to all matter particles, and even to all force particles. However, since force particles spin twice as fast, they are said to have "spin 1," whereas matter particles have "spin-½." The only exception is gravity, with the graviton having "spin 2."

Physicists in the 1970s realized that for the Universe to be truly symmetric, there had to be not only symmetries of time, place, motion, and angle, but also of spin. Every particle, whether of force or matter, had to be balanced by a corresponding particle differing by exactly spin ½. Thus, every force particle should have a corresponding matter particle and vice versa.

These hypothesized particles are called "super partners." For example, electrons, which are matter particles, would be balanced by "selectron" force particles. Muons would be balanced by "smuons." Aside from spin, all of their other characteristics would be identical, including mass, charge, etc.

Because known matter particles have spin ½ and force particles have spin 1, you'd think they would be the ideal super partners for each other. However, they are not. Physicists concluded in the mid 1970s that the known matter and force particles do not meet the requirements to be each other's partners. Therefore, the actual super partners must be particles which have yet to be found. One of the great challenges for physics in the years ahead will be to discover them.

The original insight for super partners came from String Theory. Prior to the 1970s string theorists had worked out vibrational patterns for particles of spin 1, but not for spin ½. The subsequent modification of String Theory in the 1970s led to the realization that vibrations came in pairs, with one set of vibrations for spin 1 and the other for spin ½. The result came to be known as supersymmetric sting theory, or "superString Theory" for short. Particle physicists realized that the notion of symmetry based on spin applied equally well to particles, as to strings. Thus, we have String Theory to thank for the expanded concept adopted by physics of supersymmetry, and thus of super harmony and balance in the Universe.

Unfortunately, to date, none of the super partners have ever been found. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern has not detected a single one. Yet, String Theory requires it. The continued failure to detect super partners could ultimately deal a death blow to String Theory.

B. Supersymmetry and God

Earlier, in outlining my argument for omniscience, I maintained that omniscience implied goodness as an essential and defining feature of God. Beyond the assertion that might makes right, from the standpoint of God it may be more correct to state that right makes might. That is because goodness, whether in the realm of morality or aesthetics or physics, seems to come from harmony and balance. Supersymmetry takes that argument to an extreme.

Section Eight. Berkenstein's Bound

A. The Swerve

Over 2000 years ago, in 50 B.C., the epicurean philosopher and poet, Lucretius had the remarkable foresight and clear-headedness to describe the physical Universe in much the same way that quantum mechanics describes it today. He set forth his views in the treatise "De Rerum Natura." Stephen Greenblatt tells of the unearthing of Lucretius's long forgotten work in 1417 and how its subsequent impact on scientific thought helped to light the fuse of the Renaissance, and lead us out of the Dark Ages. Greenblatt's book is entitled The Swerve: How the World Became Modern.

Basically, Lucretius did not believe in the gods of his time, or in any God at all. He felt that everything in the Universe was composed of "atoms." These atoms were immutable, indivisible, and constantly in the process of combining to form larger entities, such as rocks, trees, and people, and then coming apart again. There was no Creator. Rather, entities formed and persisted through a process of trial and error. There is no soul, and no afterlife. But, intriguingly, he also viewed the atoms as a principle of unification, because, as he wrote, "atoms...link the one and the infinite" (237).

Moreover, Lucretius proposed that every star we see in the night sky is a separate sun, surrounded by its own planets, and that the Universe itself had no center. Here on Earth, "...all religions are mere superstitions, that we fashion in our imaginations according to our desires. The highest of personal goals should be, instead, the enhancement of pleasure and the reduction of pain, for as long as we endure" (200).

Fast forward, now, to the present, 2000 years later. In his book Three Roads to Quantum Gravity (2001), Lee Smolin, a renowned physicist, attempts to reconcile the vastly conflicting theories of relativity, dealing with the very large, and quantum mechanics, dealing with the very small. And, remarkably, much of what he has to say sounds like echoes of Lucretius.

In particular, Smolin, states as a basic principle, "There is nothing outside the Universe." This, of course, would exclude the possibility of a God or a Heaven, separate and apart from the Universe we live in, or even a God existing before the Universe began, and creating it after Him. Curiously, it would also seem to exclude the possibility of a "Multiverse," complete with a plethora of other universes, outside our own. Smolin argues that, _by definition,_ "...the Universe is all there is..." (17). Moreover, the Universe is everything that ever was or ever will be. In effect, when we say, "the Universe," we are referring to all things at all times. So, on this point, Smolin and Lucretius would seem to agree.

In addition, however, Smolin argues that space and time are "discrete." That is, space and time are neither infinite in extent, nor are they infinitely divisible in size. Both space and time are formed from chunks, from tiny indivisible building blocks. In other words, time is like a movie, composed of separate, discrete frames. And space is like a brick wall, composed of separate, discrete pieces; except time and space are the same, or rather, two aspects of the same thing. This is because of Smolin's fourth principle - that "the Universe is made of processes, not things." Time itself consists of change. Without change, there can be no time. And, of course, change requires space.

The smallest unit of change is the "event." Both space and time consist of the ever-changing relationship between these events (53). By way of clarification, Smolin explains that the best way to describe a person, or any object, is not by its features - fixed and immutable - but rather by a story; a story of how it came to be and continues to evolve. In that way, you understand not just the thing itself at any given moment, but its context, and how it relates to the nexus of everything around it. The Universe, he says, is just like that, a story.

Now, to back up a little, quantum physics tends to measure everything according to the Planck scale. Hence, the smallest conceivable length is the Planck length, or 10-33 centimeters; the smallest conceivable time is Planck time, or 10-43 seconds, and the smallest conceivable volume is the Planck volume, or 10-99 cubic centimeters. These are infinitesimally tiny numbers. To illustrate just how tiny: the ratio between the Planck length and a single hair is equivalent to the size of a single hair compared to a galaxy (ask a mathematician). The ratio of the size of the Planck length to a person is equivalent to the ratio of a person to the entire Universe! It is a hundred billion billion times smaller than an atomic nucleus (Greene 141). The number of Planck times in one second is greater than the total number of seconds in all of history since the Big Bang.

The important point to bear in mind, however, is that in no case is the Planck unit equal to zero. This means that the entire Universe is like a suit of chain mail. It is composed of discrete, tiny elements. Incredibly tiny! These elements are all connected. There is no place within the entire Universe, in which we can say there is nothing.

Some explanation is in order. First, why is there no such thing as empty space?

1). because space is permeated by force fields; even where it appears that nothing exists, there are electro-magnetic, gamma ray, or even microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang; plus, the ubiquitous ocean of the Higgs field, which gives matter mass. In addition, space is perfused with cosmic rays. These consists mainly of protons, and are distributed uniformly across the sky (Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, 212).

2). because space is permeated with "dark matter" and "dark energy." As Einstein noted, "Empty space may not be empty, but have its own energy which remains constant as space expands." According to cosmologists, the density of dark energy has stayed the same, even as the Universe grows. Moreover, most of the mass of the Universe consists of this mysterious stuff.

Scientists estimate that only about 5% of the Universe is visible to us. Only about 5% consists of observable matter and energy. Another 25% consists of an unknown substance, which we cannot see or detect. Yet, we know it exists because of its gravitational effect on galaxies and stars. This is the so-called dark matter. The remaining 70% of the Universe is filled with an equally inscrutable substance called dark energy. Again, we can't detect it, but we know it's there. Why? We know because it is causing the Universe to rapidly expand. For that reason, it is known as "repulsive gravity." Whatever it is, dark energy permeates and dominates all of space.

3). because the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to fields in the same way it applies to particles; Heisenberg tells us we cannot know both the velocity and position of an elementary particle at the same time; the more we know of one, the less we know of the other; the same thing applies to magnetic and electric fields; if we know the value of one to be zero, then the value of the other cannot be zero.

"If one measures the precise value of the electric field in some region, one must be completely ignorant of the magnetic field, and so on. This means that if we measure both the electric and magnetic fields in a region we cannot find that both are zero"(83).

If it were, then we would know the values of both fields simultaneously, which the uncertainty principle says is impossible. So, in any given area of space, there has to be either a magnetic field or an electric field, or both;

4) because of "Berkenstein's bound."

What is this? Berkenstein's bound says the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its horizon. Entropy is not just a measure of chaos; it is also a measure of information. The less information you need to understand something, the more orderly it is. But, conversely, if something is extremely disorganized and chaotic, then the more information you need to keep track of all of its parts. In the case of a black hole, the entropy is extreme, because, by definition, we can never have any idea what lies on the other side of its horizon. Our absolute ignorance is tantamount to a state of absolute chaos.

What do we mean by "information"? We can define it in computer terms. Computer programs consist of bytes and bits. There are eight bits to a byte, and each bit holds one of two values, zero or one; in effect, "no or yes." Those are the only two values that a bit can have. Similarly, the information present in any substance can be measured in terms of how many yes/no questions have to be answered "to give a precise quantum theoretic description of the atoms..." in that substance (86). The more information required, the more entropy.

The horizon of a black hole is, in effect, its outer shell. It is the boundary separating the sphere from which no information, including light, can escape, and the area outside the sphere from which light particles are free to leave. This boundary shell has a finite and measurable area. According to Berkenstein, _the entropy within the black hole is equal to one fourth of that area_ (104).

The implications of Berkenstein's bound are fairly mind blowing. If entropy is synonymous with missing information, then, the amount of missing information past the horizon of a black hole must also be _finite,_ not infinite. And this same conclusion applies to any horizon in space beyond which information cannot be known. If, for example, an astronaut were traveling at near the speed of light, some parts of space would still be forever inaccessible to him. In effect, they would have a "horizon," beyond which, as far as the astronaut is concerned, entropy would be extreme (104).

If the amount of missing information in any part of space is finite, rather than infinite, then space itself cannot be infinite. This means it cannot be continuous, or infinitely divisible into smaller and smaller quantities, ad infinitum. It must, therefore, be discrete. Space must have an atomic structure, like Lucretius foretold 2000 years ago. Furthermore, if the smallest unit of volume is the Planck volume at 10-99 cc, then all of space, all of the Universe, currently consists of 10180 nodes (203). If space is composed of measurable and indivisible atoms of volume, then, there is no such thing as "empty" space.

The second bit of explaining that needs to be done here is: why is the Planck unit smallest? The Planck scale is "the smallest length allowable by quantum uncertainty" (172). If you cut the Planck volume in half, the result will be two distinct volumes, each one equal in size to the first! Mathematically, below the Planck length, random quantum fluctuations become immense. Thus, an atom, or "node," of Planck volume is the smallest possible size space can occupy. And, thus, there is no such thing as "empty" space.

B. The Swerve and God

How does all of this relate to God? When we look at outer space in the night sky, or through our telescopes, we don't see any God there. We see emptiness. The stars and galaxies seem to be separated from each other by an enormous void. So, as scientists we are forced to conclude that the Cosmos is a largely cold, empty, impersonal and objectively disconnected thing. In effect, what we see with our eyes is diametrically opposite what we might wish to believe.

But what if our eyes are deceiving us? What if "empty" space isn't empty? What if, at the quantum level, space is "atomic," that is, it consists of atoms of volume connected to each other, with no "empty" space in between? In that case, the entire Universe would be a single entity. It would not be internally separated. It would be one thing. As Lucretius says, the atoms "link the one with the infinite."

One piece of evidence in support of this theory is "entanglement." As previously described, this is the weird case in which two elementary particles, such as photons, are emitted from a single source. They travel in opposite directions. They go very far away from each other, so far away, that it would be impossible for them to communicate with each other. Even if one sent the other a message at the speed of light, that message could never reach its intended target. Yet, despite all of that, the remarkable fact is that whatever happens to one of the pair of particles is instantaneously reflected in the other.

For example, if you looked at one and it turned blue, then the other would simultaneously turn red (84). How is this possible? We still don't have an answer. But suppose the Universe were one thing - a single entity, and everything in that entity were connected. Then, the two particles would, in a sense, be one. They would be connected. Then, by definition, they are opposite sides of the same coin, and whatever happened to one of the sides would instantaneously be reflected in the other.

In his essay "De Rerum Natura," Lucretius meant to contradict the notion of a Universe ruled over by gods. And, certainly, two thousand years later, quantum mechanics, in general, and Berkenstein, in particular, hold a scientific, rather than theistic, view of the Cosmos. Yet, in all three cases, they are describing the Universe as a single entity - one that is constantly in motion, and is connected from end to end. To say that they have characterized the Universe as a living, conscious, all powerful Being would be a stretch. But they have, in fact, laid the basis for calling it _One_.

Section Nine. Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG)

A. The Concept of LQG

Loops of Energy

Loop Quantum Gravity offers an alternative to String Theory without some of the problematic prerequisites. The central concept of LQG is the "atomic nature" of space. What this means is that space is not a void, but rather is composed of tiny, adjacent chunks of volume, forming an unbroken geometry of building blocks encompassing the entire Universe.

The irreducible minimum size of these chunks is the Planck volume, some twenty times smaller than an atomic nucleus. The Planck volume, in turn, is simply the Planck length cubed. Since nothing can be smaller, these chunks cannot be said to be composed of something else. Nor can they be subdivided. Try to cut a Planck volume in half and what you get are two separate volumes, each the same size as the first (Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, 106).

Thus, the basic unit of space "cannot be taken to zero" (132). In other words, there is no such thing as "empty space." Any given area is composed of a finite multiple of Planck sized units. All of space consists of a single, unbroken, contiguous atomic structure.

Loops of energy create this structure. According to Smolin, these loops are "the fundamental entities" of the Universe (117). They are the substance from which everything else is formed. These one-dimensional loops are discrete lines of energy connecting "nodes," or chunks of space. One of the founders of LQG, Carlo Rovelli describes the loops as "... lines of force of the gravitational field" (1). He further describes LQG as "the mathematical description of the quantum gravitational field" (2).

A field, as described in the 19th century by Maxwell and Faraday, is a set of lines that fill space; for example, a magnetic field, or an electric field. Imagine the Earth surrounded, pole to pole by the lines of its magnetic field. Or consider a magnet surrounded, end to end, by lines of iron filings.

LQG thus reconciles Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity. It focuses on space at the quantum level. Each "quanta" of space is a Planck sized unit of volume. But the fabric which the loops weave around these quanta of space constitutes a gravitational field. In Einstein's view, gravity is not a force, but rather a property of spacetime. Gravity is caused by distortions in this fabric. LQG describes what the fabric looks like.

All of space, according to Rovelli and Smolin, consists of a network of intersecting loops. They are "background independent." This means the gravitational field does not exist _in space_ ; it _is space._ As Smolin states, "...space is constructed from nothing but the relationship among a set of discrete elementary objects" (128). These objects are the loops. The loops are the fundamental threads of the Universe.

At the quantum level, the gravitational field would look something like a fabric, with loops, instead of threads. But that picture is too simplistic. The fabric is constantly shifting and twisting. So, a more accurate image would be that of foam, a bubbling, restless, and dynamic foam.

Chunks, or "quanta" of space lie inside the loops. These chunks constitute "nodes" within a wider network. Each node is Planck length on each side. There are 1099 nodes per cubic centimeter. And since the Universe contains an estimated 1083 cubic centimeters, it must also be comprised of 10182 nodes.

The loops bend, twist, and knot atoms of space. This means that space itself - and therefore spacetime - is an active and constantly shifting unit. As Smolin contends, "...the right thing to do is to treat the whole system of relationships that make up space and time as a _single dynamic entity . . ._ [italics mine]" (159).

LQG versus the Standard Model

LQG overcomes two major problems with the "Standard Model," which regards the smallest entities as particles. Yet, these particles - quarks and electrons - are merely points in space with no measurable size (not everyone agrees with this). This means that you can get infinitely close to a quark or electron without actually touching it. However close you get, you can never get close enough. This introduces the factor of "infinity" into physics equations and leads to "absurd mathematical expressions" (114). If, on the other hand, space has an atomic structure and the basic entities are loops versus point particles, then, the smallest conceivable units have a measurable size, and subsequent equations make sense.

Also, in the Standard Model, relativity and quantum mechanics are irreconcilable. You can have a theory of the very large, or a theory of the very small, but you can't have both together. They don't fit. LQG, however, accommodates them both. The loops and nodes of LQG are consistent with quantum theory. And the ever-shifting structure of spacetime accords with general relativity. Gravity is the product of the curvature of spacetime as defined by the loops and their nodes (126).

LQG and String Theory

In addition, LQG overcomes two huge problems with String Theory. First, LQG does not require eleven dimensions of space and time, including seven dimensions which science can never hope to verify or observe. String Theory does. Second, LQG does not require "supersymmetry," wherein all particles and forces are balanced by exact opposites, many of which have yet to be observed. String Theory does.

Some Implications of LQG

What is especially tantalizing about LQG is the atomic nature of space. Thousands of years ago, the Greek Philosopher Zeno asked, how is it possible for us ever to get anywhere? To move from point A to point B, you have to first cross half-way. But to get there, you also had to cross half of that distance. And so on, and so forth. Indeed, you would have to cross an endless set of junctures before advancing. Of course, the distances kept getting smaller, but the problem remains. You can never go forward until you cross an infinity of halfway points. With LQG, there is a final length which _cannot be halved_. If space is not infinitely continuous, but rather discrete, then you can indeed move from point A to point B.

The other intriguing aspect of LQG is how it makes sense of general relativity. Einstein tells us that gravity is the result of the curvature of spacetime. But what exactly is it that curves? If space is an empty void, then, by definition, there's nothing there that can curve. On the other hand, if space is a fabric woven from loops of Planck sized energies, then there is something there. We move along that fabric, thinking we're going in a straight line. But if it bends, then so do we.

An additional implication of LQG bears on the subject of time. Cosmologists, today, reckon time according to the expansion of the Universe. Thirteen point seven billion years ago, the Universe was smaller than a proton. But since then, it's been growing to about 93 billion light years in diameter. Looking back, we can determine how old the Universe was at any point in the past by how big it was at that moment.

If space, however, has an atomic structure, then, so must time. This is because space and time are correlated with each other, and every point of advancement in space is associated with a moment of advancement in time. In other words, time also has an atomic structure, and comes in discrete quanta (4).

A further intriguing implication of LQG is an alternative to the Big Bang. Instead of the Big Bang, they say, there may have been a Big Bounce. That Big Bounce followed from a Big Crunch. In other words, our current Universe rebounded from the collapse of a prior Universe. There may be continuous cycles of Universes collapsing and expanding, accordion-like, throughout time.

This is because as density approaches infinity - as it would in a collapsing Universe - the behavior of the quantum foam changes. General Relativity breaks down at Planck levels. So, when General Relativity hypothesizes that the Universe began in a Big Bang singularity of infinitely tiny size, that prediction is at least suspect. At Planck levels, quantum effects dominate. Quantum fluctuations of geometry create a repulsive force, which is "totally negligible" at low spacetime curvature, but overwhelms gravitational attraction in the extreme curvatures and densities of the Planck regime (Ashtekar and Singh, Abstract).

The Big Bounce hypothesis has several notable advantages over the Big Bang. It avoids the conundrum of a _zero_ volume and _infinite_ density singularity. In addition, it may explain how the physical constants of the Universe became so finely tuned.

B. Loop Quantum Gravity and God

If all of space is connected, and if there is no infinite void between one thing and another, then we can speak of the Universe as a single entity. It is both immanent and ubiquitous, not just in the sense that it contains everything, like a glass contains water. It is immanent and ubiquitous in the sense that it _is everything_ , bound from end to end, like a single Individual.

Moreover, precisely because it is everything, it is also Being, the basic substance of which all things are formed. Not even time and space exist outside of it.

This entity looks like a graph, with a set of points connected by edges. The shape of this graph is constantly shifting, twisting, and turning, like a living thing. It is not fixed and static. So, at Planck scales, the appearance is more like a foam than a spreadsheet. And it consists of "loops of color-electric flux" (Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, 123). These loops of energy transmit information from one point to another, much like dendrites and axons transmit information among neurons in a brain.

LQG, of course, is not a theory of God. Its practitioners may well be atheists. Rather, it is a theory of science and physics. But more than any other theory in physics or cosmology, more than the Standard Model, and more than String Theory, it is consistent with the definition of God, outlined in this essay. Without resorting to spiritualism or metaphysics; without resorting to manifold hidden dimensions of space and time, LQG presents us with a picture of the Universe as a single, animate entity; suffused with energy; immanent and ubiquitous; looking rather like a giant brain.

Conclusion to Part III

We have briefly, and of course inadequately, reviewed nine scientific theories for the creation and existence of the Universe. These include Quantum Mechanics, Chaos Theory, the Higgs Boson (the "God Particle"), the Multiverse, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), String Theory, Supersymmetry, Berkenstein's Bound, and Loop Quantum Gravity. None of these theories explicitly deny the existence of God. They simply provide a plausible substitution.

In String Theory, the basis for everything is the infinitesimally tiny vibrating string. Variations in the way strings vibrate account for not only all the observed fundamental particles, such as quarks, electrons, photons, etc., but also for their properties. In that sense, the string is a substitute for God.

Entropy theory, on the other hand, explains change, cause and effect, and the one-dimensional arrow of time. If all movement in the Universe is inexorably driven by an ultimate collapse into disorder, then where is there a role for God? The Universe, rather, would be governed by a scientific law of physics.

The theory of the Multiverse is simply the theory of evolution on a cosmic level. The idea here is if a near infinite number of Universes are constantly being born and dying out, basic probability would dictate that eventually a Universe like ours would appear. Moreover, such Universes would be more likely to survive and breed other Universes like themselves. In a similar fashion, a poker player, dealt enough hands, would eventually draw a royal flush. No need, then, for a God, if probability is the real determining factor.

From a theistic point of view, the problem with Quantum Mechanics, as Einstein pointed out, is it suggests that God "plays dice with the Universe." In other words, it suggests that everything is the result of chance. There is no objective reality. There are no "facts," aside from the ones we think we observe. And without that observation, like Schrödinger's cat, everything is both real and unreal at the same time.

Finally, the only problem with the theory of the Higgs boson is that it has been nicknamed "the God particle," hence suggesting that it's a substitute for the real thing. In other words, if all matter, all things with mass and solidity, can be explained by the interaction with a force field, the Higgs field, then, by implication, that is what created the observable Universe, and not God.

All five of these theories are thus scientific explanations of the Universe and its creation that substitute for God. Furthermore, these are all widely respected and popular views within the physics community. No doubt there are a multiplicity of fringe theories that all purport to do the same thing. But here I have only discussed the ones with the greatest currency and the widest regard.

In one sense, these are not alternate theories. They do not contradict each other. Rather, it is entirely possible they could all be true. It is entirely possible they fit together to explain different aspects of reality. We could, in other words, live in one of an infinite number of Universes, where the basic entity is the string, subject to the probabilistic laws of quantum dynamics, with the Higgs boson as simply another kind of string, and where entropy is the ultimate driving force.

Right off, however, it should be acknowledged that two of the five theories violate the most basic tenet of science - they cannot be proven. Neither String Theory with its eleven dimensions of spacetime, eight of which are completely inaccessible to observation, nor Multiverse theory, with not the slightest possibility of detection, can ever be anything but a fanciful conceptualization. As Smolin observes, "... a theory that cannot be refuted cannot really be a part of science" (199). If the notion of God requires, as some would argue, both blind faith and superstition, then no less so do both String Theory and the theory of the Multiverse.

Furthermore, both String Theory and Multiverse Theory violate parsimony. Far from being the simplest explanations for reality, they are the most complex. So, let's dismiss both String Theory and Multiverse theory for irredeemable complexity, for lack of proof, and also for lack of the possibility of ever finding evidence.

Concerning the remaining three of the five cited above: Quantum Mechanics, the Second Law, and the Higgs Field. All three have proven valid to some extent. They probably do explain in mechanical terms how our Universe functions. In the case of Quantum Mechanics, however, we have the insight of Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine, advocate of Chaos Theory, who views the Cosmos from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. In other words, observations that focus on the most infinitely minute particles, viewed in isolation, do not and should not apply to the Universe as a whole, where, in fact, nothing exists in isolation, and where no action occurs without a multiplicity of reactions, all of which provide a record of the original action having taken place.

In such a Universe of actions and reactions, the arrow of time is inexorable and irreversible. Subjective uncertainty is replaced by objective fact. Cause and effect are real. And the main driver of that cause and effect is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But the Second Law arises from the peculiar structure of our Universe which makes it possible. Our Universe not only consists of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, but it could not exist otherwise. In any other sort of Universe, time would be reversible - or nonexistent - and cause and effect would unravel. The Second Law would cease to apply.

Next, let's consider the Higgs boson. It's not just called the "God particle" because it confers mass, but also because it is emblematic of a force which fills the vacuum of space and unites the entire Universe from end to end (Close 353). In that sense, the Higgs field means that everything is connected. When we look into the night sky and see isolated points of light, separated by vast stretches of empty space, what we see is actually an illusion. An invisible force field connects everything to everything else and forms all the entities we observe.

In addition to the Higgs Boson, both Loop Quantum Gravity and, in particular, Berkenstein's Bound support the concept of the Universe as a single entity connected, end to end, not only by all pervasive force fields, but also by irreducible atoms of volume. The Cosmos is an individual!

Moreover, according to LQG, the Cosmos is "alive" in the sense that it is forever changing and shifting form. Loops of energy are constantly connecting the different parts to each other. In that sense, they constitute a universal network of communications.

Finally, an essential element throughout the Cosmos is balance. Our Universe is symmetrical. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every particle of matter, there is a particle of anti-matter. For every spin, there is a counter spin. This is the nature of the Universe; it is the nature of how the Universe works; and it is the nature of how the Universe reflects itself. In the next section, we shall explore whether that reflection is also the nature of how our living Universe _thinks_.

PART IV. UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Section One. Review

If God is the Universe, and if God is conscious, then the Universe must be conscious. Otherwise, we might speak of God as an all-powerful force, the same way we speak of nature. And even though we might, from time to time, personify "mother" nature, we don't really mean it.

In Part II, we discussed consciousness: why must it be a defining feature of God; what is the evidence for it. In brief, if God - that is, if the Universe - does not possess consciousness, then He can't be God. He can't be omnipotent. He can't exercise control. He can't be aware. God must be more than the blind forces of nature; however powerful they may be.

But consciousness is a mysterious term, even to those who study it. It's not the same thing as intelligence. Computers can be intelligent, but they can't be conscious. Only humans and some higher animals seem to possess this ability. But lower forms of life do not. The fact that we do possess it, however, is the best available evidence that it not only exists, but, at least potentially, could exist, elsewhere.

Whatever else consciousness is, it seems to be a form of mirroring, where we reflect on the sensations we receive. It's how we experience sights, sounds, smells, touches, tastes, and thoughts. It is our subjective experience of the world. It is our inner life. And it mirrors whatever is happening outside us. In human evolution, consciousness may have emerged in four successive stages: 1) through simple chemical reaction to stimuli, like light or heat; 2) through the development and refinement of complex receptors for those stimuli; 3) through a central nervous system as the focal point for that reception; 4) through the binding together of inputs from various receptors to form a conceptualization of experience.

This evolution is inherent in the basic nature of the Universe, according to P.W. Atkins. Our three dimensions of space and one dimension of time enable stimulus, response, and the binding, or "knotting," of that response. In addition, spacetime produces gravity, which, in effect, "knots" the Universe together. So, what happens inside our brains is simply a reflection of a capability within the Universe, as a whole.

Atkins is an atheist. But when he states, "The Universe itself is conscious," is he merely commenting on the inevitability of consciousness through evolution? Or, is he literally claiming that what happens in our brains is only an isolated form of what is happening throughout the Cosmos?

In what sense could the Universe be conscious? If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Is there stimulus, response, and binding? The stimulus exists in the form of sound waves. Those waves do have an effect on other entities in their path, even in the absence of human observers. So, yes, there is a response. But is there a binding of that response? Do we have any evidence of it?

Section Two. Neuronal Field

The concept of a universal consciousness goes back at least as far as 480 BC, when the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras proposed that all things are created by "Nous," or mind ("Universal Consciousness"). The Nous binds us all together and connects us to the Cosmos, he said. Through the Universal Mind, people have access to an infinite power.

Like Lucretius after him, Anaxagoras taught that all things are composed of infinitesimally tiny fragments, or atoms; that these atoms are endless in number; and, most provocatively, are "inextricably combined."

Two and a half millennia later, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen observed that, in some sense, all things are inextricably combined. The EPR paradox of "entanglement" has been scientifically demonstrated. Moreover, if space is discrete, rather than continuous, then there are no voids separating us from the Cosmos. Thus, every stimulus does create a response, and this response reverberates throughout the Universe.

The Universe is permeated with invisible fields, such as gravitational fields, electric fields, magnetic fields, and the Higgs field. Could there also be a neuronal field? Such a field would act to connect individual minds to each other and to all others. It would transcend the electro-chemical activity confined within our brains.

Many of us have had some sense of how this field would operate. For example, parents claim to sense when their children are in trouble. Twins likewise claim to know what the other is doing. We sense we're being stared at behind our backs. In one experiment on this topic "Experimenter Effects and the Remote Detection of Staring," Richard Wiseman and Marilyn Schlitz (1997), two experimenters in one room were physically separated from subjects in another room. Monitors in the experimenter room were connected to cameras in the subject room. The subjects were then asked to mark down if and when they were being stared at via those cameras.

Curiously, the results were mixed. For one experimenter, the test failed (p = .64); but for the other experimenter, it succeeded (p = .04). In other words, the likelihood that the results could have been a mere coincidence were very high in one case and very low in the other. Moreover, it was the experimenter who believed in the neuronal field who succeeded, and the one who did not believe who failed.

Could the experimenters have altered the results to suit their expectations? Very unlikely, since they were physically separated from the subjects and had no means of communication with them. Plus, the responses were all recorded and observed by objective monitors. There appears to have been no opportunity for cheating before, during, or after the test.

How then can we interpret the results? Perhaps the personal beliefs and expectations of the experimenters were not irrelevant. Perhaps the non-physical communication between experimenter and subject depended on the experimenter's state of mind and their willingness or non-willingness to access the neuronal field.

Some evidence for this conclusion comes from another experiment on the "quantum system of the brain" (Grinberg-Zylberbaum). The authors hypothesize that our brains function both through a biological system plus a "quantum system." The quantum system involves the connection of elementary particles throughout the Universe by way of entanglement. To test this hypothesis, they had seven pairs of subjects meditate together for 20 minutes. After that the two members of each pair were placed in separate chambers. Then, while one of the subjects was stimulated with 100, randomly timed flashes of light, the EEG activity of the other subject was measured. The results were a success. The authors found a correlation between the stimulations of one subject, and the EEG responses of the other.

The authors conclude that the meditation phase of the experiment brought subjects' minds into synchronization with each other, so that an initial "entanglement" could be established. Then, during their subsequent separation, any change in one subject's mind would simultaneously be reflected in the other's. This, the authors suggest, is evidence that the brain operates through a "quantum system," as well as a biological system.

In a study conducted by Masaru Emoto et al, 2000 people in Japan focused "positive intentions" toward a sample of water located in California. Nearby was a control sample. When both samples were frozen, the experimental sample produced perfect crystals, while the control sample crystals were incomplete or degraded. Emoto concluded, "consciousness has measurable effects on the geometric structure of water crystals." (Radin, et al).

Emoto also conducted another study involving rice and school children. He set up three jars of rice, next to each other. He then had Japanese school children file by all three jars, projecting "good thoughts" onto the first jar, but angry thoughts to the other two. After a few days, the rice in jar no. 1 looked robust and healthy. But the rice in the other two jars looked withered and diseased. Emoto interpreted these results as indicating that positive intentions can affect not only other sentient beings, but inanimate objects, as well.

The problem with Emoto's experiments is they cannot be replicated. Several investigators have tried and failed. Whether with water crystals or with rice, the sample receiving good intentions fares no better than the samples being cursed or ignored. As one commentator notes, "Apparently Emoto's experimental protocols are so lacking as to be unrepeatable" (IsItBullshit).

Similarly, with other such endeavors. In his best-selling fiction The Lost Symbol, Dan Brown touts the work of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies and Research Lab, in demonstrating the effect of human thought on inanimate matter (67). Unfortunately, the lab has since been shut down, due to shoddy experimental treatments, which became an embarrassment to their parent institution.

We want to believe in the existence of the neuronal field. But we are unwilling to suspend disbelief in in order to do so. The sad fact is that, up to the present date, few credible experiments have demonstrated that such a field exists.

Section Three. Evidence of Universal Consciousness

In the beginning, there was light. In the first moment of recorded time, the Universe was filled with radiant energy. This occurred at "Planck time," ten million, trillion, trillion, trillionths of a second after the Big Bang. The temperature was one billion, trillion, trillion degrees. The size of the Universe was the "Planck length," or a trillion trillion trillionth of a meter. If a period at the end of a sentence were the size of the entire Universe, then the Planck length would be the size of an actual period within that Universe. The density of the Universe was one trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion kilograms per meter.

At that moment, the compressed unity, the intensity, and the energy of the Universe were almost infinite. And in that flash, all of the fundamental forces and laws that shape the destiny of our lives today were conceived.

If there is One Mind filling the Universe, it appeared in that instant. All of the immutable and universal laws of physics that have formed the Cosmos and everything in it, regardless of how great or how small, issued forth. We might never get a better view of the Mind of God. We might never get a better understanding of how a self-conscious Universe might be possible. We might never get better evidence.

And what do we see? A single, cohesive entity with a force beyond comprehension; a unified force; a force that contained the idea of everything; an idea that incorporated the parameters of human awareness. Our minds are a reflection of that idea. Might we say: we are conscious because the Universe is? Here is what evidence we have so far.

First. The Universe is a self-referential structure containing both logic and memory.

Evidence:

1. P.W. Atkins' explanation for why "the Universe is conscious." He says such consciousness is inherent in the way the Universe is formed, specifically with regard to three dimensions of time and one of space. That morphology uniquely enables both literal and figurative "knots." Strings can turn in on themselves. And so can concepts. As a result, the Cosmos is not only conducive to self-awareness. It makes such self-awareness inevitable. I have expounded on Atkins's views earlier in this text.

2. The anthropic principle. This is the quaint notion that the entire Universe was created for the ultimate purpose of producing conscious life. "Anthropos" comes from the Greek for "human." Here is the argument. The forces and particles which populate the Universe are not only fine-tuned. They are excruciatingly fine-tuned. For life to emerge, the masses of the elementary particles and the strength of the fundamental forces must be almost exactly what we observe. Otherwise, the Universe would be "inhospitable to life" (Smolin 197). Any change in the relative strengths of the strong force and the electromagnetic force would cause atomic nuclei to fall apart. Any increase in the mass of electrons, and they would combine with protons to form neutrons. In either case, the basic elements could not be formed. Any weakening or strengthening in the force of gravity and stars would either fail to coalesce or burn out too fast. And life would never have the opportunity or the time to originate (Greene 13). As Smolin observes,

"One can estimate the probability that the constants in our standard theories of the elementary particles and cosmology would, were they chosen randomly, lead to a world with carbon chemistry. That probability is less than one part in 10220" (202).

So, the recipe of cosmic ingredients is very specific and exacting. For that reason, the recipe seems not random, but intentional. It seems to be the product of a Mind.

But Smolin himself vehemently resists the notion of a Creator. He does so on the basis of his first principle: "There is nothing outside the Universe" (17). That would exclude a transcendent God separate from, and prior to his creation. But what if God is not separate from the Universe? What if He _is_ the Universe?

What if the Cosmos is not the _product_ of a Mind, but a Mind, per se? What if it is an evolving conceptualization? And it follows an exacting logic, one which rendered, inevitably, the stars, planets, life, and human consciousness. Just as DNA holds the blueprints that unfold to produce plants, animals, human beings, and conscious minds, just so, the Universe itself contains a blueprint that generates everything it contains. As Owen Gingerich writes, "By being a scientific researcher and discoverer, we are, in a sense, linking ourselves with God because of the rationality of the Universe...this logical structure _that is God_ " (215).

Paul Davies echoes that sentiment. He eschews the notion of God as a spiritual, other-worldly, detached onlooker. Instead, he posits, "... a Universal Mind existing as part of that unique physical Universe; a natural, as opposed to a supernatural God... (223). And, he goes on to write, the Universe itself is the manifestation of God's mind. "...the entire physical Universe would be the medium of expression of the mind of a natural God" (226).

The alternative, actually the only known alternative, to the anthropic principle is the theory of the Multiverse. In this view, billions, even zillions, of Universes have been created and failed, until one with exactly the right mix of ingredients finally appeared. This is "survival of the fittest," on a cosmic level. That may be the case, but it is hardly the simplest and most parsimonious explanation. So, which is more plausible: that the Universe is one of a zillion, or that the Universe is intentional?

3. The conservation of information. Today, with powerful telescopes, we can see images of the early Universe 13.5 billion years ago. The light from that period still exists, and will continue to exist forever. Similarly, the light from all events that have ever occurred at any time, and in any place in the Cosmos also still exists, making a permanent record of everything that has ever happened.

With powerful telescopes, we can look at events, for example, at a given location at noon 13 billion years ago. One year later, even though we have moved billions of miles away from that location, with ever more powerful telescopes, we can see the exact same events at the exact same time. In that sense, those events – and all events – are immortal. They are eternally fixed in the memory of the Universe.

According to Walter J. Christensen, Jr., cosmic consciousness is the product of two things: memory and choice. As to memory, it is a fundamental tenet of physics that information is never lost. This is due to the first law of thermodynamics, which states that in a closed system, the sum total of energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The energy can be converted from one form to another. It can be transformed into matter and back again, for instance. Or kinetic energy can be converted into heat energy. But the overall total remains the same (Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, 97).

Because of the conservation of energy, there is no danger of any of the components of the system suddenly disappearing, or appearing out of nowhere. Everything is preserved, in one form or another. And because everything is preserved, information about everything is conserved as well. From the point of view of physics, the Cosmos does have a memory.

Second. The Conceptualization of Space and Time.

Evidence

1. Space and Time. The Universe, as we know it, is made up of two basic components: space and time. Without either, the Universe would not exist. Without either, nothing within the Universe would exist; no fire, no ice, no rock, no light, no matter, no us. Moreover, space and time are not separate from each other, but are intertwined in what physicists refer to as "spacetime."

Much of the debate about the true nature of the Universe revolves around the stuff it's made of. Is it quarks and electrons; is it strings; is it loops? But all that rather misses the point. None of this stuff could exist without space and time. Now, it is true that the stuff creates the parameters for space and time. That is – particularly in the case of Loop Quantum Gravity – that the stuff is "background independent," meaning that without LQGs, there is no time and space. But in the absence of knowing for sure what the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy really are, what we _do_ know for sure are – space and time.

In searching for a Universal Mind, therefore, we might wonder whether it can somehow be defined by spacetime. Is there something about spacetime, per se, as Atkins alluded to, that compels consciousness? But perhaps the reverse is really the case. Relativity and quantum theory tell us that our personal awareness defines what spacetime means for us. Whether time goes by quickly or slowly – whether space is vast or slight – depends on how we see it and experience it.

Einstein states there is no "absolute" space and time. In effect, the basic parameters of our personal bubble Universe are defined by our awareness. For us, space and time are _concepts_. By contrast, consider "Jim" and his buddies. Each one of them has a personal notion of who Jim is, and they are all probably somewhat different from each other. But, in addition to the subjective views of Jim's buddies, Jim is a reality unto himself. Jim is a fact, quite independent of what anybody thinks of him. Space and time are not, according to Quantum Theory. There is no "real" space and time, aside from our perception.

Furthermore, both space and time are relative to speed, which is not something separate from space and time, but is rather a relation between both – as in miles-per-hour. At the extreme speed of 186,000 miles per second, the speed of light, our experience is time has stopped and space has collapsed. Someone watching us from a distance would have a different sense of space and time. They would see us hurtling over the sky. But we wouldn't see it that way at all.

Now, I have said we each carry in our heads a "bubble Universe," consisting fundamentally of our own perception of space and time. But the Universe came before we did. Actually, it was around some 14 billion years before we ever showed up. So, the key question is this: _Was there space and time during all those years_?

If so, then there must also have been a consciousness to define it. In other words, we are faced with the following options:

a.) Before us, space and time did not exist;

b.) Or, space and time did exist, apart from any consciousness to define it;

c.) Or, there was a Universal Mind conceiving space and time, long before we ever appeared.

Option "a" seems absurd. Option "b" seems likely, except it flatly contradicts both relativity theory and quantum mechanics. So, what's left is option "c."

2. Conceptualization. The 6th Century B.C. Greek philosopher Parmenides stated, "Thought and Being must coincide." If he is correct, what does this say about our reality?

a.) The Universe, as we know it, is fundamentally space and time;

b.) But space and time are a "conceptualization";

c.) That conceptualization is a Mind;

d.) That Mind is God.

By conceptualization, I mean the formation of a concept. The active process of forming a concept is a "Mind."

Third. Self-awareness by the Universe exists within the Universe.

Evidence:

1. Human consciousness. This proves that consciousness, per se, is not only possible but that it is real. When we think about the Universe, we see apparently random forces and mindless chunks of mass hurtling around in a limitless void. There is nothing in this picture to suggest intelligence. We see fire and ice, rocks and debris, explosions and cataclysms. But imagine that we - you and I - were cells inside a human body. Or even, imagine we were cells inside the brain. Imagine the violent flashes of electricity, the surges of chemistry, the clumps and long tendrils of matter. Imagine looking around at all the upheavals and eruptions. Wouldn't it also seem chaotic and random? Wouldn't it also seem to be unthinking? In effect, that is the position we hold within the Universe. We occupy a tiny promontory inside a vast structure, and have no hope or expectation of ever seeing it, or grasping it, as a whole, from the outside.

Yet, one thing is certain. This entity, the Universe, composed of so much solid mass and violent eruption, and seemingly empty, unbounded space, somehow did manage to produce life; not only life, but intelligent life, and awareness, and the remarkable ability to contemplate itself. It produced us. We are the undeniable proof that consciousness within the Universe can and does exist.

2. Genius. The manifestation of a Universal Mind sometimes takes curious and unexpected forms. In the stage play Amadeus, for example, the character Salieri rails against heaven. He bemoans the fact that, inexplicably, God appears to have chosen a feckless child - Mozart \- as His vehicle to speak through. Somehow, as Salieri laments, Mozart is channeling God's Mind. Otherwise, how else could he produce such great works of genius?

The list of famous geniuses throughout history is well known. And, as Salieri claimed about Mozart, the same might be said about any of them. They all appear to be channeling a higher consciousness. It is not only a consciousness _of_ the Universe, but a consciousness _by_ the Universe. In effect, the Universe is seeing Itself through their eyes. Through these people of genius, the _Cosmos is manifesting that is self-aware_.

3. Epiphany. Even though most of us do not fall into the category of "genius," many of us still experience our moments of rare insight. Suppose the following to be true – that the Mind of God is reflected and expressed in the logic of the Universe; that we see that logic in the universally applicable equations of physics, to include the equations of thermodynamics, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, and general relativity. How, then, could we discern whether this logic came from a purely natural phenomenon, or a Being?

Not by miracles. It doesn't make sense that God would violate His own system of logic to make a point. If God's Mind is perfect, anything that subverted it would abrogate its order. Also, not by appearing before us. After all, if God is the Universe, He already appears before us everywhere we look. Even if He were to appear in the form of a person, then we would have every good reason to doubt that person's claims, unless, of course, he performed miracles. But that would violate His order.

So, what's left? How else could God make Himself known to us? The answer, I believe, is through _insight_. God would not change His Own Mind, but He certainly could change ours. He could make us see basic truths about the Universe, about its beauty and coherence, and about ourselves, that we would be unable to perceive by ourselves. He would give us an epiphany.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines epiphany as "A moment when you suddenly feel you understand, or suddenly become conscious of, something that is very important to you." They go on to explain, the word epiphany originally referred to "a powerful religious experience" ("Epiphany"). And it seems to come from an external source, often as "a manifestation of God...that is tangible to the human senses" (Gotquestions.org).

In her book Epiphany, Elise Ballard further defines "epiphany" as,

"A moment of great or sudden revelation; an intuitive grasp of reality through something usually simple and striking; an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure" (front).

Ms. Ballard is an actress and filmmaker, whose debut documentary was about Buda Dog Races in Buda, Texas. She does not appear to be affiliated with any religious group or have any particular spiritual ax to grind. Instead, she wrote her book because her own personal experience made her curious about that of others.

So, epiphanies have the characteristic of being: seemingly from an outside source, surprising, sudden, important, and fulfilling. Epiphanies are not like when we work out a problem in our conscious thoughts. They are not even like they come from us at all. They are much more like they come from outside.

Indeed, the word epiphany is from the Greek "epiphaneia," meaning "appearance" or "manifestation" (Ballard 5). And in ancient Greece it was used to describe a revelation from the gods. Carried over to English, in the mid-1600's, it also referred to appearances of divine beings (5).

Ballard separately interviewed 58 luminaries, celebrities, and ordinary people about their epiphanies. Two themes stand out. First, the epiphany seems to emanate from an outside source. Second, that source seems like God. In her introduction, she describes the experience as "a portal to the Divine" (6). And she adds, "All had to do with hearing a voice, either an inner voice or one from a Higher Power" (8).

For example, actress Ali McGraw recounts that her epiphany, "made me feel that I finally could, and absolutely _had to_ connect with a Higher Power" (29). An Anglican deacon, helping alleviate the suffering of drought victims in Africa, tells, "All of a sudden, as clear as daylight, this voice outside my left ear said, 'Three days." (165). Sure enough, three days later, it began to rain. Another lady said, "It wasn't my inner voice, or a voice in my head, but a man's voice outside of me to my left...It was what you would think a Higher Being's voice would sound like" (177). And she adds, "It might sound crazy, but I know I heard it, and I know it was real" (177). Another respondent says, "For me that voice was God's" (179).

The notion of epiphany also helps resolve another bothersome critique. If answered prayers are evidence for God's existence, then how come many – if not most – prayers go unanswered? How come intense suffering befalls even the most devout among us? I think the answer lies in the nature of epiphany not as a miraculous intervention in the course of events, but rather as an insight into how things are. It gives an insight into our own situation and that of those around us, and, perhaps, through that insight, the ability to alter events through our own behavior.

4. Civilization as the accumulation of insights. Breakthroughs in the sciences and the arts have enabled us to develop culture based on fundamental laws of nature. Mathematics, literature, biology, physics, cosmology, engineering, genetics, chemistry, harmonics all reflect a deeper perception and understanding of reality. Modern civilization is based on these perceptions. Civilization is like a giant composite reflection of everything we've learned about how the Universe really works.

Civilization exists because, through some of us, the Universe has become more, not less, self-aware. Through some of us, the Universe has become more, not less, self-conscious. And through civilization that awareness is spread.

Let us pause for a moment and revisit the question of good and evil, in the context of civilization. Specifically, if God is good, why is there evil? I have been linking morality with awareness. For instance, nobody would call a rock evil if it fell on someone's head and killed them. The rock doesn't know what it's doing. The same goes for a plant that poisoned someone. And consider the animal kingdom. The most horrendous sort of killing goes on every minute of every day on land, sea, and sky. Yet, we don't hold mammals, fish, and birds responsible for their deeds, or consider them particularly bad. It seems entirely plausible for the concept of a benevolent God to coexist alongside the machinations of animals, plants, and rocks.

When it comes to humans, however, we hold a different standard. We look at the cruelty and brutality of man and conclude that God Himself must be evil, or at least indifferent. But consider. Maybe the same is true of humans as it is with rocks. Some of us are simply unaware. After all, don't we say people who commit acts of brutality are "animals"? There are those who are enlightened and those who are not; those who are blind, and those who see. Those who are not civilized, and those who are.

A good education is an important part of that process. This point is underlined in an article "Crime Rates Linked to Educational Attainment" by the Alliance for Excellent Education. In a statistical analysis, they show that an increase in the high school graduation rate of American males by as little as 5% would decrease assaults by 60,000 annually, and would lessen murder by 1300. Moreover, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice, 56% of federal inmates, 67% of state prison inmates, and 69% of local jail inmates did not complete high school.

Goodness may be a question of awareness. But for those who are aware, who are not simply part of the Universe, but who have matured into a deeply reflective part, then, we are transformed. We are sensitized. We are moral. Rocks, plants, and animals are not moral beings. Many humans are not either. But that doesn't mean that the Universe itself is evil or amoral. On the contrary. The more we appreciate, understand, and respect the world around us, the better we become. This is the work of civilization.

5. We are not alone in the Universe. Earth, by itself, is a speck of sand within the entire Cosmos. And it would seem remarkably presumptuous to suppose that whatever awareness we have gained on this tiny outpost of a planet should be taken as the only evidence of universal consciousness. But consider this. Life, sentient life, almost certainly exists throughout the Universe. This is especially true if Atkins is correct, and we live in a Universe hard-wired for consciousness. In that case, there must be intelligent beings all over the place. Many of them, over the billions of years, should also have developed their own civilizations. In that case, universal consciousness should be all pervasive.

In effect, the Universe would be a breeding ground for consciousness. The emergence of self-awareness would not be not an accident of evolution, but an unfolding inevitability.

So, the question is not - "Is consciousness universal," but rather - "is _a_ Consciousness universal." Certainly, wherever consciousness exists, to the extent that it reflects an awareness of the fundamental laws of nature, the _content_ of that awareness is universal. In other words, there may be many eyes, but _only one sight_ ; only one "logical structure" to focus on. There is only one truth. The closer we come to that truth, the more we are aligning with a Universal Mind.

Fourth. Interstellar Biogenesis.

Evidence:

Sir Fred Hoyle, who died in 2001, is the renowned and controversial astronomer/physicist from Oxford and Cal. Tech. who famously coined the phrase "Big Bang." In a series of articles and books, he proposed the theory, which has come to be known by the unfortunate moniker "panspermia." He holds that life emerged not from Earth, but from outer space, and that the likelihood that it could have come about via "random processes" is so incredibly unlikely, that it had to be the product of a "super intellect."

His conclusion stems from an investigation of stellar nebulae, those vast clouds of "dust" that appear to be the Cosmic nurseries for stars and galaxies ("The Universe: Past and Present"). Hoyle wanted to know what the grains of dust are made of. He considered and dismissed various hypotheses: Are they ice particles? No. They'd evaporate. Are they graphite? No. It's not reflective enough. Are they magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, iron, or silica? No; there is an insufficient amount of these elements and compounds to explain the fogging effect of nebulae, as they block out light from behind them. On the other hand, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen do exist in sufficient cosmic abundances to explain the fogging effect. Well, then, are the dust particles inorganic compounds of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen? No, because such compounds would dissolve too easily.

What does that leave? Only one possibility, according to Hoyle. These interstellar grains of dust had to be organic! In other words, they had to be carbon based molecules. Such molecules are the foundation for all known life forms on Earth.

Moreover, the embryonic solar system had to contain about 3000 Earth masses of these organic cells. At a uniform size of .7 microns each, they are about the same size as bacteria, the most numerous sort of life form on Earth. And the fact that they are all about the same size throughout the galaxy suggests reproduction, the essential hallmark of life. Where did these cells come from? How were they created?

Mathematically, it is basically impossible that living cells could have been assembled through "random processes." Specifically, according to Hoyle, they could not have arisen from "abiogenesis," that is, from non-living elements and molecules on Earth.

For example, living cells are created through the mediation of large proteins called enzymes. They regulate the proper ordering of amino acids, without which life would not be possible. The typical enzyme is a chain of 200 links with 20 possibilities for each link. Moreover, cell assembly requires 2000 enzymes. There is only one correct way for these enzymes to be formed, and a virtually infinite number of ways it could go wrong. Indeed, according to Hoyle, the number of incorrect ways these enzymes could go wrong is 1040,000. This is an astonishing number. It is greater, vastly greater, that the total number of all the atoms in the Universe, estimated at 1080.

In science, and in the courtroom, evidence is based on probabilities. If one person witnessed a murder, there is a chance he could be wrong. If ten people, the chances are slim to none. But if the odds are 1040,000 then, the chances that the killer is innocent is essentially zero. Or, the chances that the scientific theory is incorrect is virtually 0%. Thus, Hoyle concludes, "By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by _thought_ , not random processes...The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Fifth. The Universe resembles a mind.

Evidence:

1. Wide scale photographs of the Universe appear strikingly like pictures of electrical activity within the brain. In the broader view, we see not individual planets or suns, but rather clusters of galaxies, and super clusters of those clusters, so that vast areas of the Cosmos are organized together and transmit forces internally among their components. Moreover, if we add theoretical images of the distribution of dark matter and dark energy - these two dominant elements of our Universe – the resulting picture looks remarkably like a constellation of neurons, axons, and dendrites.

2. We know the physical world is an illusion. An atom is 99.999999999999 percent empty space. It has a tiny nucleus at the center, equivalent to the size of a pea in the middle of a football stadium. And it has a blur of electrons at the perimeter, equivalent to dust motes. Furthermore, even those electrons and quarks do not possess intrinsic mass. They only appear to have mass because of their interaction with the elusive Higgs Boson.

The real Universe is permeated with energy. And what appears to us as solid and massive is in actuality the interaction of forces, pushing and pulling against each other. In this context, then, the Cosmos is populated not by static and impermeable things, bodies, or objects, but rather by a fluid and ever fluctuating exchange of forces. And intrinsic to that exchange of forces is also an exchange of information. In that sense, the Universe does resemble a mind.

3. The wireless transmission of information is already a commonplace aspect of our lives. Not only do we have radio, television, and the internet. NASA can beam instructions to rovers 53 million miles away from Earth to Mars. Voyagers I and II are still sending us signals from inter-stellar space, some thirteen billion miles away.

Information is continuously being transmitted throughout the Universe via radiation. Whether through light rays, sound rays, cosmic rays, gamma waves, gravitational waves, or electromagnetic waves. Imagine a Universe without it. All stars, planets, and galaxies would exist in darkness and total isolation, each with no knowledge of the other. They'd be like lumbering black rocks moving haphazardly through empty space, silent and alone. Thought itself would be impossible without any medium for transmission. That our Universe is the opposite of this bleak vision attests to the fact that communication of information is an inherent feature of its existence.

4. Binding. Previously in this essay, I discussed the role of "binding" in human consciousness. Every 1/40 of a second, the brain takes a snapshot of all its stimuli and associates them with each other. Our experiences consist of these little snapshots all strung together like frames in a movie reel. So, even though it seems like a continuous flow of events, we are, in fact, seeing the world through still shots.

According to Lee Smolin (Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, 62), that's exactly what the Universe does. Precisely because space is discrete, and not continuous, so is time. For every movement from one atom of space to another, there exists a corresponding atom of time. For every Planck length, there is a corresponding Planck time. That time is infinitessimally brief at 10-43 of a second. But it cannot be subdivided. It is a discrete segment, and not continuous.

What this means is that like the binding that takes place in the human brain, there is an equivalent binding effect in the Universe, as a whole. Everything that appears in the space of the Planck segment is associated together within an atom of time. Thus, the Universe also takes still shots. In that sense, it resembles a Mind.

Sixth. We are connected.

Evidence:

1. The emptiness of space notwithstanding, it appears that all things in the Universe are connected. We are connected by pervasive energy fields. But more than that, we are connected by irreducibly tiny "atoms" of space. These are Planck sized, measurable chunks of space, with no voids in between. Thus, the Universe is discrete, and not continuous. It is discrete on the microscopic level. But it is also discrete on the macroscopic level, as a single unbroken entity.

Smolin speaks of the Universe as a nexus of relationships (Three Roads to Quantum Gravity 18). What he means is there is no such thing as space aside from the objects within it. And there is no such thing as time aside from change among those objects. For example, if you move from one side of a room to another, the "geometries of all the triangles in the room" (19) also change. The change is very minute and subtle. But the space in the room is not a thing independent and apart from what occupies it. Indeed, Smolin says, talking about space apart from the entities within it, is like talking about a sentence without its words (18). Take away the words, and the sentence no longer exists.

In physics, this concept is called "background independence." And it means, basically, space is not something separate and apart from us.

So, any change in the relationships among objects, in effect, redefines space and time. And thus, everything is connected. It's as if space itself were a living organism, a single entity reacting to any and all adjustments occurring within it. In that regard, the Universe is "sensitive."

2. In an update of his original book on Creation, P.W. Atkins debunks the notion of mind, as something intangible and ethereal. Instead, he maintains, that mind is nothing more than "neurons, synapses, electricity, and chemistry." In that regard, much the same can be said for the Universe as a whole. It is infused with chemistry and electricity, sending photons and other forms of radiation in all directions.

It is not the composition of the mind, or of the Universe, that mystifies us. It is rather how all those neurons, synapses, electricity, and chemistry combine to produce subjective feelings and subjective thoughts. If we knew how it happened in our own minds, perhaps we might better understand how it might occur in the Universe as a whole.

**Conclusion.** Evidence for Universal Consciousness

In searching for evidence of God, if we can show that the Universe per se is conscious, then, game over. Now, many would claim that such evidence is impossible to find because God, by definition, is "transcendent." In other words, He exists in a spirit realm to which we have no access. Several feel that the same is true of consciousness. It too, they claim, belongs to an invisible, inaccessible place.

Atkins, however, debunks this claim. He asserts that mind and consciousness are simply the product of physical processes. Nothing paranormal about that. I would agree. In this essay, I have been asserting that God inhabits the same material world that the rest of us do, and so does His Mind. He is the Universe around us. He can be observed, and so can His Mind. So, when we look for evidence of universal consciousness, that evidence is out there for us to discover.

In the section above, I have tried to make this case in terms of: the composition, the process, and the existential nature of the Universe.

First, in terms of composition: at the most superficial level, when we look at wide area pictures of the Universe, it looks remarkably like a brain. Galaxies are joined into super galaxy groups, which form into even larger galaxy clusters. All of this is lit up, and various forms of radiation ceaselessly flash from node to node.

Moreover, as Hoyle argues, interstellar space is teeming with living cells. They could not have been assembled haphazardly, or through trial and error. Mathematically, they could not have been formed through biological processes on Earth. Nor could they have been planted by the occasional comet. They had to be created by a Mind.

Also, in terms of composition, the Universe has a "memory." All events that have ever happened are preserved in a "light record," which never goes away. Plus, the Universe reflects. As Atkins points out, three dimensions of space and one, irreversible dimension of time uniquely configure our Universe not only for reflection, but also, ultimately, for consciousness. Finally, the Universe is One. It is a single entity connected, end to end by irreducible units of volume.

It is a single entity that looks like a brain, is teeming with living cells, has a memory, binds its information into segments of time, and reflects.

Second, in terms of process: the simple answer is - us. We are part of the Universe. And because of us, it is clear at least one segment of the Universe does have consciousness and is self-aware. This seems wildly improbable. How could star dust, chunks of rock, shards of ice, fiery explosions, and flares of radiation produce us? How could something so dead and so dumb produce something so smart and so aware? Yet, somehow, it did. And if, in the face of such a radical improbability, we humans were possible, how absurd is it to imagine something even greater?

Is there a higher consciousness than our own? If so, how might we become aware of it? Many – if not most of our ideas and thoughts come to us through our conscious reflection. We work them out in our minds. But some of our greatest insights seem to emanate from the outside. We have epiphanies, which are sudden, surprising, and, apparently, external. Men of genius have described how their greatest insights struck them in this manner. Of course, these are also people who have studied long and hard on a problem, and the sudden realization may be simply the work of their subconscious.

But one thing is clear – every time someone achieves an epiphany, they are experiencing a _higher level of consciousness_. It is very different from the ordinary sort of awareness they normally have. Moreover, it is often about some greater truth. So, an epiphany is not simply an altered state of consciousness – seeing kaleidoscopic colors or fanciful specters. It is rather an insight into something fundamental.

If there is a Universal Mind, is this not exactly the way it would make itself known to us; not through miracles; not through messiahs; not through spirits, but through a meeting of the minds; our mind breaking through to a greater Mind, a greater Mind reaching down to us?

And how do we know this isn't delusion: the "Son of Sam" or conversations with Jesus? Simple. We take the truths we are given and test them out. Does gravity really bend light? Do species really evolve to adapt to their environments? Do closed systems really progress toward entropy? If so, the insight is valid.

Finally, we have existential proof for a Universal Mind. Is Parmenides correct? Must "thought and being" coincide? Did space and time exist before we humans evolved some seven million years ago? What about the 14 billion years before that? Could there have been "being" without "thought"? If not, then there had to be _Thought._

In Conclusion:

Is the Universe conscious? We know for sure part of it is. We are. So, the potential for consciousness certainly exists. How did it arise? The anthropic principle tells us life came about on purpose, and not by accident. Hoyle says the chances of such an accident are 1040,000. Smolin says the chances of even producing a world with carbon chemistry by accident are 10220. They all conclude that, currently, the most viable alternative is that the Universe was produced by a Mind.

In scientific terms, therefore, we must reject the "null hypothesis." This is when we ask the odds of something happening by chance. If the odds are .05 or less, we reject the null hypothesis. In other words, if the likelihood of accident is only one time out of 20, then it probably happened on purpose. If the odds are .01 or less – or one time out of a hundred \- then, it almost certainly did not happen by accident. But if the odds of something happening by chance are one time in _over a trillion trillion trillion_ , then we must conclude it happened on purpose. And in the case of life on Earth, that means it was produced by a Mind.

But where is that Mind? Is it transcendent to the Universe? Is the Creator separate and apart from His creation? As Nielson argues, such a conclusion is incoherent. It references a Divinity Who cannot be referenced. Being transcendent, such a Mind can never be observed. Being unobservable, it can never be proven or disproven. Being incapable of proof, it is unacceptable as a scientific hypothesis. It must be rejected!

On the other hand, there is ample evidence to conclude that the Mind of God is _here_. It is not separate from the Universe. It is the Universe. As Atkins states the Universe itself is conscious. He bases his conclusion on the dimensionality of spacetime. But to that we can also add: the Universe is a single entity, a discrete individual, connected end to end, with no voids in between. That individual is composed, in essence, of nothing but energy. That energy is constantly transmitting information throughout the body of the Cosmos. That information is "bound" and associated within discrete snapshots of Planck time, much like the way our own brain works. And that information is both reflected and retained.

Beyond that, there is the question originally raised by Parmenides, and more recently by Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, and quantum theorists in general. Can there be _being_ without _thought_? Must reality be reflected in order to be valid? In the span of some 14 billion years, where else might the Universe have been reflected if not through a Universal Mind?

We humans are part of that Mind. Our consciousness is part of It's consciousness. Through us, in part, the Universe is self-aware. But how do we know? How do we know that we are involved in a greater enterprise? How can we experience that involvement? That question calls for a subjective response. And subjectively I believe the answer is epiphany. Those who have experienced it claim it is like hearing the voice of God. Practically, everyone who has had an epiphany makes this claim. What we do know for certain is that it elevates us to a _higher level_ of consciousness. It gives us insight into truths about the Universe that would otherwise remain obscure.

Section Four. Consciousness and Perception

This book is about evidence for God. This chapter concerns a particular type of evidence, and is based on one of the defining features of God cited earlier, His immanence. The following propositions apply.

1. God is immanent.

2. Therefore, God is everywhere, including within ourselves.

3. Therefore, evidence for God must also be everywhere, in plain sight.

4. Therefore, the realization of God is a matter of perception. As Hamlet says, "there is providence in the fall of a sparrow."

5. Most people look, but do not see. They experience, but do not appreciate. Others perceive the world around them more acutely. They view the same world as the rest of us, but more deeply and more thoughtfully. We have already considered how genius offers evidence of a God-like consciousness. That argument was based on the thesis that people of genius do not appear to be inventing their insights, so much as _perceiving_ them.

For example, many of us stand in railway stations watching trains go by. But how many viewing that spectacle see the relativity of space and time, as Einstein did? Many people have contemplated the horror of drowning at sea. But how many have perceived, as Shakespeare did in The Tempest, a merciless beauty in that horror:

"Full fathom five thy father lies;

Those are pearls that were his eyes;

Of his bones are coral made;

Nothing of him that doth remain,

But doth suffer a sea change,

Into something rich and strange"

6. The great songwriter James Taylor was once asked how he came up with his ideas. And he answered that it didn't feel like he was inventing the songs out of nothing; rather it seemed like he was hearing the songs in his head, as if from an outside source. In similar fashion, Newton didn't invent gravity. Einstein didn't invent relativity. Shakespeare didn't invent the anguish of young love. Rather, they saw and they heard what most of us do not. They perceived.

7. To the poet Maya Angelou, epiphany involves, "seeing an old thing in a new way" (6).

8. To author Elise Ballard, of the four elements of epiphany, the first, and most important is "Listening" (8). "People," she says, "were _listening_ and _paying attention_ to signs and what was going on around them" (8).

What all of these insights have in common is a sense of timelessness within the moment, the sense of an eternal truth in what appears to be a transitory and passing event; not only timeless, but also universal, in the sense that the same insight applies everywhere. Timelessness and universality are thought to be aspects of God, and so is transcendence. But to most religions transcendence is a matter of spirit, of a separate world above and apart from the observable and the material.

Transcendence, however, can also apply very strictly to the world we live in. It can refer to insight about ordinary things and the deeper truths and deeper meanings they represent. A simple example is math. The logic of mathematics is universally and eternally true. One and one will always equal two. And wherever we look, mathematical equations apply. Newton's observations about the falling of an apple to the ground, and the equation that very simple event represents concerning distance and mass (gravity = mass divided by distance squared). It turns out Newton's insight applies not just to one particular falling apple at one particular moment, but to all apples at all moments, and, indeed, to all objects everywhere and forever.

Newton's law of gravity is timeless, universal, and transcendent. These are all aspects of God. But they required the perception of a genius looking at what most of us would consider a very ordinary, forgettable, and even boring event. There is, indeed, providence in the fall of a sparrow.

There are also universal truths, I believe, governing the relations between people. Another Newton, John Newton (1725-1807), illustrates the point. In his early years he worked as a slave trader, subsequently becoming captain of a vessel transporting slaves from Africa to North America. At the age of 30, however, he left that trade and underwent a religious conversion. He became an Anglican minister and ardent abolitionist, whose work ultimately helped produce the Slave Trade Act of 1807, ending slavery in the British Empire. He is mainly remembered today as author of the hymn "Amazing Grace":

"Amazing grace, how sweet the sound,

That saved a wretch like me.

I once was lost, but now I'm found,

Was blind, but now I see."

In his youth Newton was "blind" to the evil of slavery, and simply accepted it, like most of his fellow countrymen, as a fact of life. But he came to perceive a fundamental truth about what he had been doing, and that perception transformed his views about the institution of slavery and about himself. Like Isaac Newton, John Newton perceived something timeless, universal, and transcendent.

It's obvious to us today that slavery is wrong and that human beings are not to be bought and sold, like commodities. Today, we probably think those facts are self-evident. But that was not the case in John Newton's time, when most people assumed the opposite. It took individuals of rare perception to see things differently.

So, there are timeless, universal, and transcendent truths all around us. Granted. But how does that add up to evidence for God? Well, first, it shows that basic aspects of God do exist. Second, it shows how to find the evidence. Third, it shows the intellectual difficulties, and/or social resistance that prevent most of us from seeing that evidence, even though it is both apparent and ubiquitous. Fourth, it really focuses our attention on the one vital piece of evidence that we need most of all: universal consciousness.

What we do have is evidence of logic. The Universe is not chaotic or inconsistent. The laws of physics, of relativity, and of science in general, apply throughout the Cosmos. As Einstein says, "God does not play dice with the Universe." Things happen in predictable and orderly ways (quantum mechanics notwithstanding). So, if the Universe is governed by logic, where does it come from? In our own everyday experience, logic comes from a mind. Logical activity is mental activity. And, perhaps, in striving to perceive the logic of the Universe, we are also studying its Brain."

The language of that logic is mathematics. It underlies all of science, and even all of the arts. It expresses the movement of planets in their orbits, and the movement of babies in their cribs. Mathematics is the universal language that connects everything to everything else. It's like a vast computer program projecting the superficial world of images we inhabit. And, in particular, it's how the Universe talks to us. The equations that govern our thoughts derive from the equations that govern the world.

One implication of the argument that evidence for God is all around us is that we should not expect that evidence to come from miracles or magic. It is not in the extraordinary; it is in the ordinary. Nor should we expect the evidence to come from God Himself, coming down from Heaven and proclaiming, "Here I am."

Why not? Well, He's already here, and He always has been. Furthermore, who would believe it? History and insane asylums are freighted with individuals proclaiming their divinity. And even if the great announcement were accompanied by a few dazzling miracles, well, only the handful who saw it would be impressed. For everyone else it would be hearsay. Plus, we live in an age of computer generated imagery, where almost any effect could be conjured up by man.

But there's another, deeper reason why that sort of miraculous revelation wouldn't work. I can tell you that Bach is a great composer; that Van Gogh is a great painter; that Dickens is a great writer. But those are just words. It's just hearsay. You have to experience the truth of what I'm telling you for yourself. The music has to transform you; the painting has to move you; the writing has to intrigue you. That's how real understanding takes place. In other words, God is something you must personally perceive. Great thinkers can help us achieve that perception. But realization comes from within.

Ultimately, evidence for God must come from our perception of God. We must be able to see the extraordinary in the ordinary; the timelessness, the universality, and the transcendent in the everyday. And that is not to say the evidence is strictly "numinous," or subjective. What we see can be and must be backed up by solid, objective, and empirical proof. The question of Virgil's greatness, for example, isn't simply a matter of personal taste.

The subject of perception leads us to the whole issue of consciousness. That's where perception comes from. The psychiatrist Carl Jung saw evidence for God in what he referred to as the "collective unconscious" (57). He maintained there are common archetypes, or ways of thinking, that transcend different cultures and different times. The notion of a "wise old man," is an example of a universal archetype. It seems to cut across all cultures and times. A belief in God is another archetype.

Such a belief "has been in evidence at all times and in all places throughout the history of the human race" (60). God, Jung feels, constitutes a person's "center." Discovering that center, discovering God, is the process of understanding oneself (62).

As Jung sees it, universal archetypes are truisms. Evidence of their truth lies in the fact they are universal. But these truths remain hidden in the unconscious. Sometimes they emerge in our dreams. But often we obtain them through insight. And because God is at the center of who we are, the realization of God, a perception of the wholeness of the Universe and our place in it, is simultaneously a perception of self.

PART V. FINAL THOUGHTS

Section One. Human Suffering

Of the many logical and philosophical objections to the existence of God, the one that resonates the strongest with most people is the basic question of human suffering. As Vincent Bugliosi plainly stated, in reference to one particular atrocity, "How does God, if there is a God, permit such a horrendous and terrible act to occur...?"

Throughout this essay, I have grappled with this question. Regretfully, I have not come up with any easy answers. If we look to Judaism and Christianity, we come up with two disparate positions. In the Old Testament, human suffering, as depicted in the book of Job, is viewed as a test. It is a test of the strength of one's faith in God. Again and again, Job's friends and advisors counsel him to denounce the Lord, in light of the devastation that has befallen him in his life. But Job refuses. His faith in God remains steadfast. And he is rewarded in the end.

In the New Testament, on the other hand, God sends His only son Jesus to comfort humanity in its time of need. This personification of God is meant to relieve Earthly suffering through comfort and the force of love. As Peter Kreeft writes, "He sits beside us in the lowest places of our lives..." Jesus is a reminder that God is always with us, to give us strength in our moments of despair.

To some extent, I have adopted the Christian view. God does not interfere in human affairs, but He is immanent, inside us, sharing our tribulations, and giving us comfort when we need Him the most. But why doesn't He intervene?

The First Reason

I believe the answer is two-fold. First, we are human beings, not robots, not automatons, not computer programs. Above all, this means we have choice. We have been given a democracy, not a dictatorship. And the most critical choice of all is the one regarding character. In Yiddish, a distinction is drawn between "Mann" and "Mensch." A Mann is simply a male. But a Mensch is a decent, reliable, trustworthy human being. He is a stand-up guy, someone you can always depend on when the chips are down. It is the highest compliment you can pay someone. It means nobility of character. It isn't important how much money you make, or how pretty you look, or how smart you are, or how much power you wield. All of these attributes are fairly irrelevant in the face of the one thing that really counts. Are you a Mensch?

But the problem is: if we are free to do good, then we must also be free not to. Indeed, were we not free to be evil, then goodness itself would have no meaning. Character would have no meaning. And the one thing that makes us most distinctly human would have no meaning. The essence of being a good and decent human being is not so much what we do but the choices we make, especially when those choices are hard.

Well, does this mean God is "testing" us? No. Doing good is an end in itself, not the means to another end, like passing a test. Ultimately, the fate of humanity depends on it. We will not evolve, and civilization will not advance, unless we face these hard choices, and we make the right decisions. It's not a question of passing or failing a test, or of reaping rewards or punishments in heaven or in hell. It's simply a matter of becoming decent human beings.

As I wrote earlier, we don't blame the rock for bouncing off someone's head. We don't blame the plant for poisoning someone. We don't blame the leopard for killing its prey. Neither the rock, nor the plant, nor the leopard have a choice. Moreover, the law provides "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" as criminal defense, recognizing that a certain class of people – the insane – might not have a choice either. In addition, I might add ignorance and lack of awareness, not perhaps as a defense, but certainly as a reason for abhorrent behavior. That is why we don't convict small children. In effect, they don't have a choice because they don't know any better.

But both as adults and as a society, we have an obligation to make ourselves and others more aware. We have an obligation to educate ourselves. For us, ignorance is not an excuse. We can and should know we have a choice, and that what we choose determines who we are. Inevitably, some will choose evil, and others will suffer because of it.

The Second Reason

I believe there is a second reason God does not intervene. God is perfect. His laws are perfect. The fundamental equations of physics that govern the Universe exemplify God's Mind. They are both perfectly logical and universal. To imagine that God would break his own laws and alter the course of events governed by those laws strikes me as bizarre and irrational. We all wish for miracles. But what is a miracle, but something that breaks the laws of God? Why would God do that?

There is an assumption in Bugliosi's complaint, "How does God...permit such a horrendous act..." The assumption is that God _does intervene_ in human affairs. This is certainly a reasonable assumption, dating back to Greek and Roman gods who were constantly intervening, if not downright meddling. It also has its roots in the Bible, where God routinely involved Himself in worldly matters – for example, the casting of Adam Eve from the Garden of Eden, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the parting of the Red Sea. It is precisely because we assume God does intervene, that we blame Him when He doesn't.

If, however, we did not make that assumption, then Bugliosi's complaint would be wrong. If, instead, we supposed that God gave us this life to make what we will of it, in regard to morality, to science, to engineering, to medicine, then we cannot blame him for the results. This is a position widely held by Deism. According to them, "God left Nature to work itself out in obedience to laws originally given...they believe neither that God takes care for the universe nor that He can do miracles" ("God does not intervene in the universe (Deism)").

On the other hand, it is entirely consistent with the notion of God outlined here, for us to seek to understand God's Mind; to pray both to the God of the Universe and the God inside of us; to search for a fundamental understanding and wisdom to enable us to help ourselves. Or, if no help is possible, then to give us some measure of solace, comfort, and love. We can assume that God is with us wherever we may be. We are part of Him, and He is all of us. He knows our suffering, and He feels our pain.

We are beset by disaster and misfortune. But gradually, and inexorably, through the advance of civilization, and the insights of people of genius, we have made enormous strides not only alleviating man's inhumanity to man, but also fighting disease, overcoming famine, and controlling our environment. As I have written, just because God is perfect doesn't mean we are. Just because we aren't, doesn't mean He isn't. We are weak; we are ignorant; we are unenlightened. For all those reasons, our life is a struggle.

Symmetry

Finally, one of God's laws, some would say the most important of them, is symmetry. The Universe is governed by this principle. In that regard, Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke the following words:

"When our days become weary with low hanging clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" (azquotes).

Prophetically, although Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968, his words rang true; because 40 years later America elected its first black President. The principle of symmetry suggests the Universe is in a state of balance. And this is the case not just in physics, but also in aesthetics, and also in morality. The arc of justice should ultimately prevail.

Pictures of the Earth taken from outer space show us a vision of surpassing splendor. We see a perfect, shining, round blue sphere, suspended in the blackness of the void, surrounded by blankets of cloud, moving over a verdant land. This is our home, the "blue marble." This is what God has given us as our birthright. Seen from afar, one can only imagine that such a dwelling must be a paradise for those who inhabit it. And perhaps someday it will be. It is our goal and our challenge to live up to the promise of this extraordinary place.

Section Two. The Pyramid

An apt visual representation for the kind of Universe we live in is the pyramid. It is, after all, an object with a two-dimensional bottom that rises, over time, through a third dimension to a point. Unlike a cube or a rectangle, the pyramid has no redundant space. There is simply no need for another two-dimensional surface at the top, since the concept of two dimensionality is already perfectly expressed at the bottom.

The point of the pyramid is especially intriguing, since it is the end toward which the entire structure is stretching. Over time, as the pyramid rises, it closes more and more tightly around the point. The distance away from the point becomes less and less. At the same time, with each step up, we attain a position superior to where we were before. In that sense, the pyramid suggests an escalation toward a unified state of being.

Turned upside down, the pyramid evokes the Big Bang. After all, the Universe is thought to have begun in a point, infinitesimally small, and then expanded out after that. Again, the origin of everything thereafter, is the point.

Upside down, or right side up, the pyramid reflects where we all came from and where we will end. Intriguingly, the pyramid is found in many ancient cultures throughout the world, including Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Mayan, Aztec, Nigerian, Cambodian, and Nubian. And in all places where the pyramid appears it functions as a place of worship. It is a holy place, meant to inspire awe.

One more observation may be advanced about the point of the pyramid. A person at the top of the structure may place their finger on that point and touch something solid. Thus, the apex of the monument is something material that exists in time and space. It does not vanish into nothing, even though the dimensions are exceedingly minute.

I have addressed the question where did the idea of God come from. I have suggested that the idea is fundamental; it's all around us; it's inherent in the form of the Universe we live in;

So, consider the pyramid as a reflection of that idea. It does not rise in a haphazard manner. From start to finish, it is designed to rise towards a point. And even before it is finished, the concept of that rise is what guides and directs its construction. From the very beginning to the very end, there is never any doubt about what the final product is meant to be.

Now the point is One. It is the only One. And everything else is organized around it. In fact, no part of the pyramid can be understood, without regard to, and without reference to its distance from and its relationship to that point.

Section Three. The Sun

As many as 37 different cultures have worshipped a sun god in the past, or continue to do so today. These include the Egyptian, Hindu, Aztec, Inca, Anasazi, Greek, and Roman. We consider these societies pagan, and their worship as superstition. Modern science tells us what the sun is actually made of and how it really operates.

On the other hand, deeming the sun a god may not be quite so far-fetched. After all, within our "solar system," it is the central element of our existence. It dazzles us and blinds us with its brilliance. It holds the planets together in their orbits; it provides the essential energy for life; it is the stuff of which we are made. The Earth and everything in it is star dust. In effect, the sun created us, and sustains us in our being.

Of course, one problem with the notion of the sun as a god, is that the Universe contains many suns – trillions to be exact. There are more suns in the Cosmos than grains of sand on the Earth. Plus, within our own galaxy another entity is more centrally important. The great Black Hole at the core of the Milky Way is the hub around which all of its subsidiary solar systems revolve.

The point is: the concept of a central, dominating, existential power in our life is not so wrong-headed. The Universe is not a chaotic and random collection of forces and entities, each spinning off on its own individual trajectory. We are, in fact, unified. We are unified around a central force. We are unified around a force to which we not only owe our continued existence, but also for our being here in the first place.

To the ancients, that force was the sun, and they weren't so foolish to draw that conclusion. Of course, the sun is not God, or even a god. But perhaps it points to a greater truth. Beyond the sun, and beyond the great black hole at the center of the Milky Way, does the Universe itself obey the same organizing principle as our solar system and our galaxy? We know the Cosmos has no physical center. Wherever you are in the Universe can be considered its center, with everything else radiating all around you.

But we also know the Universe has a logical center. It revolves around a core of laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics, which not only control everything, but which also apply everywhere and always. That logical center has something which neither our sun, nor any sun, nor any black hole possesses. It has reason.

Section Four. Atheism

The Argument for Atheism

Empiricism. This is the argument for atheism. There is no confirmed observation of God. We don't have pictures. We don't have valid eyewitnesses. We don't have fingerprints or DNA. Moreover, in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, even the possibility of observing God is denied. He is transcendent to the Universe, and therefore unobservable. Yet common sense tells us - seeing is believing.

Now, it is true that in the past, and now, we have believed in the existence of entities which we could not, or cannot observe. For example, there's the electron, or the Higgs boson, or the string. But at least it has been _theoretically_ possible to observe all of these. We just needed to wait for technology to catch up. We hypothesized that the Higgs boson existed, for instance, because of its alleged effects. But we had to await the construction of the multibillion dollar Large Hadron Collider in Cern, Switzerland, before we could see it. That sighting confirmed the theory.

In addition, the evidence we do have concerning whether God exists seems to point in the opposite direction. Nobody has offered proof positive for a soul or a spirit or heaven. Indeed, the prevalence of evil and injustice suggests the absence of any greater benevolence or wisdom in the Universe.

And when we look out into the wider Universe, what we observe is the vast interplay of blind and violent forces. Our future life on this planet seems to depend entirely on not being hit by a stray asteroid, or being caught in a gamma ray burst or sun flare. Physics seems to govern events, not Providence. Here on Earth, chemistry, biology, genetics, and natural selection seem to be the main determinants of our species. Thus, the case for atheism rests on what we do see and what we don't. We do see the forces of nature. We don't see God.

The Argument against Atheism

In the first portion of this essay, we attempted to define not God, per se, but rather what God's essential features _had to be_. These include omnipotent, omnificent, existential, eternal, and ubiquitous; purposeful, omniscient, conscious, immanent, and good. Find a Being with these qualities, and there is God. To a lesser degree, all of these qualities exist. Empirically, they all can all be observed. Moreover, they are all hypothetically observable in their highest form. There is no theoretical barrier to observing any of them. None of them are self-contradictory, or "transcendent." Therefore:

1. Regarding empiricism: God can be observed. He is all around us.

2. Regarding experience of God: Through breakthroughs, insights, and epiphanies, we receive an elevated sense of awareness.

3. Regarding the soul and spirit: there is no need for them. God is part of the material Universe.

4. Regarding the prevalence of evil and suffering: God has given us a democracy, not a dictatorship. We are free to make our own mistakes, just as we are free to pursue what is just and good. Otherwise, we would not be human.

5. Regarding science versus God: where do we think science came from in the first place?

6. Regarding the evidence: logic, science, and the laws of probability are laid out in this essay for a jury of one – yourself – to decide.

Section Five. Summing up

Overview of the Argument

God is the Universe. He has to be. God's Mind is the laws of nature. It has to be. That Mind must, of necessity, be intelligent, conscious, and aware. No other definition makes sense.

Omnipotence. Our concept of God begins with omnipotence and extends to all the qualities that flow from it. Omnipotence is key because without it, the word God loses its meaning. Without it, God's power is imperfect. No matter how good or how wise or even how powerful, lacking omnipotence, God would not be _supreme_.

Many religions have semi-potent gods. The ancient Greek, Roman, Norse, and Hindu gods, for example, are all pseudo-humans. They are limited by their nature, by rival deities, by their own passions. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim God, on the other hand, is, in a sense, the epitome of the concept. He is pure spirit, disembodied, with no material limits. He is one, the single, ultimate, and supreme. All being flows from Him. He is the first and basic principle to which all else is subordinate. He is the equivalent of what scientists search for in nature - the simplest and most parsimonious explanation for all creation.

From the attribute of omnipotence flow the attributes of omnificence, being, and immortality. In regard to omnificence: omnipotence, taken literally, extends not just throughout the present, but to the past and future, as well. This is why God had to be creator of the Universe. If there were a separate force, independent of God, which created the Universe, then God would not be omnipotent. Another power would have written the laws of nature, to which our present God adheres. If, in turn, we accept God as creator, then it follows that He must also embody being. As Spinoza contends, whatever created the Universe was the first substance, and the first substance could logically not have been created by anything before it. Unlike everything that followed, therefore, the only possible explanation for the existence of the first substance is that existence per se is its nature. God is being. If so, then He can never not be. People can be and then not be, just as water can transmute from solid to liquid to gas. But just as someone cannot be both alive and dead at the same time, so "being" per se can never not be. God must be eternal.

Omnipotence, omnificence, being, and immortality must be basic attributes of God. But these are not enough. These could all be attributes of a natural force. These are all purely physical, and they could apply to forces in nature, such as gravity or electro-magnetism, or even String Theory. But we define God as more than just a blind force of nature. Such forces obey inexorable laws, which they themselves are powerless to direct. Our definition of God must include intelligence, as well. Without mind, there can be no consciousness or control or direction or plan. Indeed, without intelligence there really is no omnipotence, because if you have no say over how your power is used, you are powerless.

A truly omnipotent God, therefore, must be intelligent. Primarily, omnipotence requires omniscience. Knowledge is power. But along with knowledge must be design, or will. The potency of God's might depends on the degree to which that might is subordinate to His will. Real power is the successful use of force in furtherance of an objective. Power assumes will. In turn, the successful exercise of will requires the attributes of omniscience, immanence, and goodness. First, omniscience: total control requires total knowledge. Any area of ignorance, however trivial, limits God's power. In other words, nothing must happen behind God's back. Second, immanence: total knowledge requires immanence. To truly know everything, God must be in everything. In that sense, God's knowing is different than ours. If you tell me you have a headache, for example, in a sense that's something that I know. But my knowing is drastically limited not only by the obvious fact you may be lying to me, but also by the specifics of how you actually feel and how it affects your perceptions. I can't really know about your headache unless I'm inside your head, which is exactly why omniscience requires immanence. Finally, goodness: if God is immanent, then He must be good. For what is the basis of goodness if not empathy? A God who experiences our headaches as acutely as we do ourselves, knows all of our suffering, all of our fears, and all of our pleasures. An immanent God is not apart from us, observing us from a distance; He is part of us. As such, God alone is in a position to embody the greatest good. No other being has that advantage.

One might argue that empathy does not automatically translate to goodness. That is true. But if not sufficient, empathy is certainly a necessary condition for goodness. Without it, action is based on incomplete appreciation. Genuine goodness cannot be based on self-interest, or calculation, or even sympathy, but rather on an acute apprehension of the suffering, the unfairness, the yearning which it seeks to alleviate. The sole motivation for genuine goodness must be to provide relief and solace to those in need. The greatest goodness, therefore, must spring from the greatest appreciation, the greatest empathy for those needs. No other being besides an all knowing, all pervasive God could have this appreciation.

But what would be not only necessary, but also sufficient for the argument that God is good? The answer is if right makes might. If God's omnipotence depended on his goodness, and He could not be all powerful unless He were all good. Just as, by definition, He could not be God unless He were omnipotent. Logically, He could not be omnipotent, unless He were perfectly good.

Because God must be immanent, He must be everywhere. He cannot be separate and apart from the Cosmos. He must _be_ the Cosmos. And everything in the Cosmos must be part of Him. So, logically, God cannot be like a builder and his product, or an inventor and his gadget. In this case both must be one - builder and product, inventor and invention. The Universe cannot be separate and apart from God. That would make it an independent entity.

Moreover, the Universe must not only be God; it must be the Mind of God. What use, after all, would God have for a body? In effect, we material beings, and all material entities are God's body, or rather the embodiment of God's thoughts. Otherwise, God Himself, would have a corporeal form not only separate and apart from the Cosmos, but also of a different nature than the matter and energy that form the Cosmos. In other words, He would be a "spiritual entity." And we have already rejected the existence of any such fanciful thing that would be both unproven and unprovable.

Rather, we material beings - people, plants, planets, galaxies - are physical projections of God's mind. We serve to embody His thoughts. In effect, we are God's dream. Our minds are His Mind. What we think is what He imagines. And if that is the case, then dying is a form of waking up. And, as in the case of my own human dreams, when I do wake up, it's not as if the people in my dreams have expired, or ceased to exist. Instead, it's just that I now realize _they were me_.

Overview of the Evidence for God

First off, in terms of evidence, let's acknowledge what is painfully obvious. One thing we know for sure is there's a great deal we don't know. And we know for sure there's a vast amount for us to learn. In other words, we know enough to know humility. We know enough to know we cannot say there is _not_ a power greater than ours. So, to absolutely deny this possibility is irrational and goes against the evidence. We certainly don't know enough to be able to reject the existence of God.

Science, I would argue, supports a belief in God. The "singularity" which preceded the Big Bang and resulted in the Universe was a supernatural event. It consisted of an all-powerful force, emanating from a single point, infinitely small and dense. Indeed, it was a point outside of space and time, neither of which yet existed. We cannot know anything about this singularity, because none of the laws of nature apply to it. It was literally supernatural.

From out of this singularity poured energy, and from that unified energy came matter and all the forces that govern our life. So, the singularity appears to possess the attributes of a monotheistic deity - a single, superordinate, omnipotent, existential, ubiquitous, eternal creator. Only one thing is missing.

Where is the intelligence? But for that, the Big Bang sounds like Genesis: In the beginning, darkness. Then, God said, "Let there be light." So, the challenge is not how to prove there is an omnipotent force governing the Universe. That is fairly well established. But how to prove it is intelligent?

Here's what we know. The Cosmos is governed by a single set of laws that are both logical and universal. Ultimately, those laws produced us – our intelligence and our consciousness. So, the question is: Did this happen on purpose?

The alternatives range from the unlikely to the impossible. The infinite monkey theorem shows the absurdity of it all happening by accident. The Multiverse theory is ridiculously complex. And mathematically, any theory of abiogenesis seems inconceivable. What is left?

The simplest, most elegant, and scientifically most parsimonious explanation is our consciousness came about on purpose. Our human intelligence now, and potentially greater intelligence in the future, must be reflective of an inherent universal potential. _We wouldn't be smart, if the Universe couldn't be smart. We wouldn't be aware, if the Universe couldn't be aware_.

And we see the inherent consciousness of the Universe in: it's morphology; the Universe is unified; it is self-reflective; it constitutes a "nexus of relationships"; it is sensitive; it has a memory; it transmits information; it bundles information; it conceptualizes space and time, making them real; it is logical, not chaotic or inconsistent; and, apparently, it communicates with us. We have every good reason to feel, to believe, and to conclude that we are part of a much larger enterprise. And that is the Mind of God.

Section Six. A Personal Note

I believe in God. Like most people, my belief has its basis in non-rational, emotional, intuitive, and, yes, even self-serving grounds. These grounds are suspect because, as William James writes, they come from "A tender minded believer who believes in God not because of objective evidence but because it makes him feel good, or, much more seriously, because it is his only hope for real happiness (Pascal's Wager)..." (Moreland and Nielsen 17).

I look at my perfect little kitty, and I think, "That's God." Then, I think, " _It has to be_." How absurd to imagine that God is anywhere but right in front of us and all around us! How ridiculous to suppose that what we have before us is something distinct and apart from God, and that God Himself resides is some separate, invisible, and transcendent realm, to which we have no access. We are God. The Universe is God. My kitten is God. It has to be.

This may all seem irrational, and contrary to the objective, empirical, and scientific argument on which this essay is based. Nevertheless, this is where my belief comes from, in the first place. I believe in God because of answered prayers. Like many of you, I have dropped to my knees and begged God for help at critical times in my life. And most of the time, my prayers have been granted. This is true even when the outcomes I prayed for seemed almost impossible. Again and again, God came through for me. I prayed for the health of the people I cared for. And God came through for me. I prayed for the love of the people I cared for. And God came through for me. Sometimes my prayers were answered within hours. After all that, wouldn't it be churlish and ungrateful for me not to believe?

Yet, I say this knowing full well that others have prayed equally hard to no effect. Throughout human history, millions and billions have suffered horribly and endured great losses, despite their most earnest prayers. By comparison, my experience is merely anecdotal, and does not stand up to the scrutiny of science. But, of course, I can only testify to my own personal experience. I don't know about other people's circumstances. And speaking only for myself, my experience has been good.

This raises the question who or what do we think we're praying to. Certainly not a man; certainly not a being that resembles a man - or a woman either. Rather, we pray to a conscious, sentient force, a force that hears us the way we hear ourselves; indeed, it is a force that includes us hearing ourselves; it is a force inside of us and that we are inside of. We are, at the moment of prayer, the center of consciousness of our own supplication. But we have also transcended ourselves. We have reached out to something bigger and greater than we are. Whatever that something is, we have connected ourselves to it through our prayers. We are not alone.

Now, one may argue, what about evil? If we are God, if the Universe and everything in it is God, then what about Hitler? What about Stalin? What about Manson? Are they God? And this is a difficult question. I believe it's a question that no one can adequately answer. Nevertheless, I'll give it a try. And let me start by somewhat immodestly quoting from myself. Earlier in this essay, on page 8, under the heading of "Omnipotence," I wrote,

"For lesser beings, such as the rest of us, might and right are by no means the same. Man's might can be constructive or destructive. Even at his most constructive, however, man can only grope toward an understanding of the rightness of his course. He never has all the facts. He never realizes all the implications. He never controls all the unintended consequences. His best laid plans often go awry. Therefore, even super-men must be humble and cautious in the exercise of their might. Because we exercise our power imperfectly, _man's_ might can never be synonymous with right."

In other words, we don't see the big picture. We may be _of_ God, and God may be _in_ us, but no single one of us is omnipotent and omniscient. Rather, we are part of a great endeavor to realize the God within ourselves. People who know what's right and pursue what's good are enlightened. Such people don't need to be told to rescue a victim from a car wreck, to save a child trapped in a well, to alert their neighbors to an oncoming storm. They do it because it's right. And they know it. At the other extreme, some people are not enlightened. They do not realize the God in themselves. He's there, but they don't see it. They are blind to the great enterprise, of which they are a part. That blindness may be the cause of their inhumanity.

It is my thesis, however, that we collectively reach for perfect knowledge, perfect understanding, perfect wisdom, perfect grace. In the aggregate, that's what humanity is striving for. We may never achieve it. Certainly we're not there yet.

We are not disconnected from the Universe around us, even though it appears that way. Rather we are embedded within a physical ecosystem, as well as a cognitive and emotional social system. And, I believe, this is not simply confined to the planet Earth. Is it fanciful or superstitious to pray to the heavens and hope that in some sense our hopes and our prayers reverberate through the Cosmos and do not simply dissipate, but rather are felt and are heard?

I believe in God because of the wonder of creation. The beauty and the sweetness and the grandeur that surround us and our ability to be moved by it confirms that there is more to existence that the strictly mechanical or the bleakly utilitarian.

And yet, logically, I know all these things can be explained. We are meant to be awed by the Universe, because we are part of it. We are a tiny part, and of course we would be overwhelmed by it. We have limited understanding, so of course we would be amazed by the genius of things we cannot grasp. And over billions of years of evolution, starting with single cell bacteria, we naturally would find the environment we inhabit to be pleasant and adaptable.

So, in effect, there are two standards of evidence. The one is personal and the other is public. On the personal side, I do not discount intuition or feeling or emotion. Often times, these reactions point us toward a hidden truth. I do not discount private experience. Nor do I discount the power of prayer. On the contrary, such evidence is very compelling. Moreover, it may well be necessary for each of us individually to find our own personal connection to God. It may be like love. Only the individual who feels it knows, for sure, that it exists. And unless he feels it, no amount of scientific or objective evidence matters.

On the public side, however, the evidence has to be something everyone can see and share. It needs to be consistent, objective, empirical, and verifiable. These are the proper standards of science, and the proper standards of the courtroom. Moreover, it validates what we may feel individually. As I said at the beginning of this essay, no jury should ever convict or acquit based on a gut feeling. Their decision must be based on the facts, hard facts. And ultimately, the standard for a belief in God should be the same.

On the other hand, when it comes to the question of creation, the science is fundamentally as mystical as the religion. Yes, religion struggles to answer the question: if God created everything, then what created God. But then, science equally struggles with the question: if everything came from the Big Bang, then where did the Big Bang come from? Religion struggles with the question: where is there evidence for a Being with supernatural powers. But then, science equally struggles with the question - how is it possible for everything to emerge from an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely tiny point in space, where the laws of physics do not apply.

And it does not exactly burnish scientific credibility for String Theory to argue for the existence of an unobservable eleven dimensions of space and time; or, for Multiverse theory to argue for an equally unobservable and unprovable number of parallel Universes of which we can never be aware.

I believe that science and religion can be reconciled. And I believe that scientists searching for the truth about how the Universe began, and how it evolved, and how it works are, in fact, conducting a profoundly religious exercise. Just because science runs contrary to particular aspects of religious dogma, doesn't mean the two are basically antithetical. If, in fact, the Universe isn't 5000 years old but actually more like fourteen billion years old, so what? If, in fact, human beings were not zapped into existence on day six, but rather evolved into their present form over millions of years, so what?

On the other hand, some things are indisputable: a. it's indisputable that we don't know all the answers, and there remain huge gaps in our understanding of the Cosmos; b. it's indisputable that humility in the face of such overwhelming ignorance is warranted; c. it's indisputable there are powers vastly greater than ours; d. it's indisputable there is an overarching wisdom which humans may never attain, but must nevertheless constantly try to reach; e. it's indisputable, I would contend, that this wisdom is absolute, in the sense that for everything in the Universe, there is one truth, and for every course of action, there is one right way; f. it's indisputable, I would contend, that this absolute wisdom exists; g. it's indisputable, that over the next hundred, thousand, million, and billion years, unless we are destroyed, we will proceed geometrically closer to attaining this wisdom; h. it's indisputable that nature confronts us at every turn with heart stopping wonders which convince us that behind it all something truly miraculous must be at work; i. it's indisputable that reaching for God, that is, God-like insight, God-like knowledge, God-like wisdom, God-like imagination, God-like beauty, God-like goodness, God-like love, God-like mercy, God-like power, is our goal. And it has been for thousands of years. Whether one believes in God or not, unity with God is what you and I strive to obtain.
REFERENCES

Adams, Fred, and Loughlin, Greg, The Five Ages of the Universe, 1999, Touchstone Press: New York.

Alexander, Eben, Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife, 2012, Simon and Schuster: New York.

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2013, Sept. 12). "Crime Rates Linked to Educational Attainment," Retrieved from https://www.all4ed.org/press/crime-rates-linked-to-educational-attainment-new-alliance-report-finds/.

Angier, Natalie, "Powerhouse of the Senses, Smell, at Last Gets Its Due," (9-14), in Wade, Nicholas, Ed., The Science Times Book of the Brain, 1998, Lyons Press: New York.

Answerpool. (2012, Dec. 31). "What Is the Self." Retrieved from http://www.Answerpool.com.

Ashtekar, Abhay, "Loop Quantum Cosmology: An Overview," in General Relativity Gravity, 2009, 41:707-741.

Ashtekar, Abhay and Singh, Parampreet, "Loop Quantum Cosmology: a status report," In "Classical and Quantum Gravity," vol. 28, no.21, 20 Sept., 2011, IOP Publishing, Inc.

Ashtekar, Abhay, Ed,. 100 Years of Relativity: Space-Timr Structure, Einstein and Beyond, 2003, World Scientific Publishing Co. Ltd.: Singapore.

Ask a Mathematician. (2013, May). "What Is the Planck Length?" Retrieved from http://www.Askamathematician.com/2013.

Atkins, P.W., The Creation, 1981, W. H. Freeman and Company: Oxford and San Francisco.

Atkins, P.W., Galileo's Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science, 2003, Oxford University Press: Oxford and New York.

Azquotes, "When our days become weary." Retrieved from http://www.azquotes.com

Ballard, Elise, Epiphany: True Stories of Sudden Insight to Inspire Encourage, and Transform, 2011, Harmony Books, New York.

Blakeslee, Sandra, "How the Brain Might Work: A New Theory of Consciousness," (232-237), in Wade, Nicholas, Ed., The Science Times Book of the Brain, 1998, Lyons Press: New York.

Blakeslee, Sandra, "A Separate Pathway Slowly Carries a Caress to the Brain's Attention," (31-32), in Wade, Nicholas, Ed., The Science Times Book of the Brain, 1998, Lyons Press: New York.

Brainyquotes. (2017, July 15). "Albert Einstein." Retrieved from http://www.Brainyquotes.com.

Brooks, Michael, The Big Questions: Physics, 2010, Quercus: London.Brown, Dan, The Lost Symbol, 2009, Doubleday: New York.

Brummer, Vincent, ed., Interpreting the Universe as Creation, Pharos, 1991: Netherlands.Bugliosi, Vincent, Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder, 1996, W.W. Norton and Company: New York.

Byrne, Peter, Natural Religion and the Nature of Religion, 1989, Routledge: London and New York.

Calder, Nigel, Einstein's Universe, 1979, Wings Books: New York, Avenel, New Jersey. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus, 2013, "Epiphany," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Cayler, George V., 2003, "God's Building Blocks," Retrieved from https://ontherightside.wordpress.com/articles/gods-building-blocks-2/.

Christensen, Walter J., Jr., "Cosmic Consciousness," Journal of Cosmology, 2011, vol. 14. Chongonation. (2014, May 4). "Riding a Beam of Light and Travelling at the Speed of Light." Retrieved from http://www.chongonation.com.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, De Natura Deorum, 77 B.C.

Clegg, Brian, Before the Big Bang, 2009, St. Martin's Press: New York.Close, Frank, The Infinity Puzzle, 2011, Basic Books: Philadelphia.

Davies, Paul, The Runaway Universe, 1978, Penguin Books: London.

Edwards, Johnathan, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," A Sermon, 1741.

Feynman, Richard P., QED, the Strange Theory of Light and Matter, 1985, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

Gardner, James, Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life Is the Architect of the Universe, 2003, Inner Ocean Publishing: Makawao, HI.

Gardner, Martin, Relativity Simply Explained, 1997, Dover Publications: Mineola, NY.

Gingerich, Owen, "Mind of the Universe," pp. 205-220, in Flatow, Ira, Ed., Present at the Future, 2007, Collins: New York.

Gotquestions.org, (2002-2017). "What Is an Epiphany?" Retrieved from http://www.Gotquestions.org/epiphany.html.

Greenblatt, Stephen, The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, 2011, W.W. Norton and Co.: New York.

Greene, Brian, The Elegant Universe, 2005, Vintage, Random House: London.

Greene, Brian, The Fabric of the Cosmos, 2004, Alfred Knopf: New York.

Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., M. Pelaflor, L. Attie, and A. Goswami, "The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The Transferred Potential," in Physics Essays, vol. 7, no.4, 1994.

Harrison, Edward, Masks of the Universe, 2003, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time, 1990, Bantam Books: New York.

Hawking, Stephen, Grand Design, 2010, Bantam Books: New York.

IsItBullshit "Dr. Emoto's Rice Experiment." Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/IsItBullshit/comments/3h75h5/isitbullshit_dr_emotos_rice_experiment

Johnson, William H., Louis E. Delaney, and Thomas A. Cole, Essentials of Biology, 1969,  
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., New York.

Jung, Karl, "Le Structure de l'inconscient," 1916, Archives de Psychologie.

Koch, Christof, The Quest for Consciousness, 2004, Roberts and Co.: Greenwood Village, CO.

Kreeft, Peter, "What Is God's Answer to Human Suffering," excerpted from Making Sense Out of Suffering, 1986, Servant Books: Ann Arbor, MI.

McGill Selection. (2008/9). "The Infinite Monkey Theorem." Retrieved from http://www.Cs.mcgill.ca.

Moreland, J.P. and Nielsen, Kai, Doe s God Exist: The Debate between Theists and Atheists, 1993, Prometheus Books: Buffalo, New York.

Morris, Simon Conway, The Crucible of Creation, 1998, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

"God does not intervene in the universe (Deism)"), Retrieved from http://www.The-new-way.org/apologetics.

O'Malley, William, S.J., God, the Oldest Question, 2000, Loyola Press, Chicago.

Paley, William, Natural Theology, or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the DeityCollected from the Appearance of Nature, 1802, R. Faulder: London, and John Morgan: Philadelphia.

Prigogine, Ilya, The End of Certainty, The Free Press, 1996: New York.

Rae, Alistair, Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality?, 2004, Cambridge University Press: ambridge.

Radin, D., Hayssen, G., Emoto, M., Kizu, T., "Double-blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation," Journal of Science and Healing, 2006, Sep-Oct: 2(5), pp. 408-411.

Rees, Martin, Before the Beginning, 1997, Helix Books: Cambridge, MA.

Rovelli, Carlo. (2015, May 27). "Loop Quantum Gravity." Retrieved from http://igpg.gravity.psu.edu/people/Ashtekar/articles.html.

Runzo, Joseph, ed., Is God Real, 1993, The MacMillan Press Ltd.: Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and London.

Smolin, Lee, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, 2001, Basic Books, New York.

Smolin, Lee, Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe, 2013, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: Boston, New York.

Stannard, Russell, God's Experiment: Can Science Prove the Existence of God?, 1999,Hidden Springs: Mahwah, New Jersey.

Stenger, Victor J., God - The Failed Hypothesis, 2007, Prometheus Books: Buffalo, New York.

Sutherland, Stuart, MacMillan Dictionary of Psychology, 1989, MacMillan Reference: London.

Toland, John, Christianity Not Mysterious, 1696, John Toland: London.

Wade, Nicholas, Ed., The Science Times Book of the Brain, 1998, Lyons Press: New York.

Weinberg, Steven, The First Three Minutes, 1977, A Bantam Book: New York.

Will, George, (2001, July 9). "July 10, 1941, In Jedwabne." Newsweek.

Wiseman, Richard and Marilyn Schlitz, "Experimenter Effects and the Remote Detection of Staring," Journal of Parapsychology, vol. 61, Sept. 1997.

### BACK

" _Now my charms are all o'erthrown,  
And what strength I have's mine own;  
Which is most faint: now,'tis true,  
I must be here confin'd by you,  
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,  
Since I have my dukedom got  
And pardon'd the deceiver dwell  
In this bare island by your spell;  
But release me from my bands  
With the help of your good hands.  
Gentle breath of yours my sails  
Must fill, or else my project fails,  
Which was to please. Now I want  
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant;  
And my ending is despair,  
Unless I be relieved by prayer,  
Which pierces so that it assaults  
Mercy itself and frees all faults.  
As you from crimes would pardon'd be,  
Let your indulgence set me free."_

(The Tempest, Epilogue, William Shakespeare)

### About the Author

Ken Levi grew up in Boston, moved to Ann Arbor, where he received his Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Michigan, then moved again to San Antonio, where he taught Sociology at the University of Texas. He is the author of the book "Violence and Religious Commitment," about the suicide and murder of over 900 members of the People's Temple Church in the Jonestown massacre. He has also published several articles on violence, crime, and delinquency.
