Science Cannot Prove That God Does Not Exist

In several posts, I have pointed out that it is impossible for science to prove that God exists, just as it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. The reason is that the object of scientific inquiry is the material world, and God is not part of that world and is therefore beyond the reach of science.

In a previous post, I criticized a book that attempted to do the former, from the perspective of believers. In this post, I will criticize another book that attempts to do the latter, from the atheist perspective. It is M-E: The God Within, by Joseph R. Abrahamson.

Although the author claims to rely on the principles of logic and the scientific method, he makes significant errors that indicate his lack of in-depth knowledge of these disciplines. The argument he presents as proof that God does not exist, although not explicitly stated in the book, can be deduced from reading it and can be summarized as follows:

Different types of chance

Jacques Monod

When we don’t know why something happens, we usually say that it is due to chance. But this statement is ambiguous, because there are two different types of chance:

• Epistemological chance, where the cause of what’s happening is well-known, but so complex that it remains outside the scope of our knowledge. Almost all games of chance (dice, roulette, lottery jackpot) are examples of this type of chance. Rolling dice conforms to the laws of mechanics, but the conditions are so complex that we cannot predict the result of each roll. This type of chance is what Jacques Monod called operational uncertainty in his book Chance and Necessity (1970):

This term is used... in relation to the game of dice, or roulette, and the calculation of probabilities is used to predict the result of a play. But these purely mechanical and macroscopic games are not "the result of chance" except because of the practical impossibility of controlling the throwing of the dice or the ball with sufficient precision. It is evident that a very high precision launching mechanism is conceivable, and would make it possible to largely eliminate the uncertainty of the result... The same thing happens, as will be easily seen, in... many phenomena where the notion of chance and the calculation of probabilities are applied for purely methodological reasons. (My translation into English).

Is there energy in the cosmos?

Georges Lemaître

During the 1950s two cosmological theories entered in competition: the Big Bang, proposed by Georges Lemaître, and the steady state, proposed by Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold. Although the second had to renounce the principle of the conservation of energy, the most sacred of physics, atheist cosmologists preferred it to the Big Bang, as it seemed to them that this theory required to accept God's creation. In the words of the English astronomer Raymond Littleton, in his popularization book The Modern Universe (1956):

A theory such as this [the Big Bang] that puts back creation to a singular instant in the remote past... to some minds it is an objection that it would imply the removal of the question of the origin of the material of the universe from the realm of science... This consideration does not of course mean that the explosion theory is necessarily wrong, but it puts the act of creation, as we might name it, beyond the reach of science.

In other words: Raymond Littleton objects to the Big Bang theory because it could force us to recognize the existence of a creative God. It cannot be said more clearly.

Virtual particles

Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, one of the consequences of quantum mechanics, makes possible the birth of virtual particles in the void, apparently transgressing the principle of energy conservation, the most holy in physics. The reason is that Heisenberg’s principle can be expressed in several ways, one of which relates the uncertainty about the energy to the uncertainty about time:

DE.Dt≥ħ/2

This expression can be interpreted in the sense that a pair of objects, each with energy E, can appear spontaneously in the vacuum, provided that they lasts at most a time Dt<ħ/(2E). These pairs of objects are called virtual particles. One of these particles is always matter, the other antimatter, and their duration, according to this principle, is ridiculously small. A virtual electron, for instance, would last 1.3×10^-21 seconds (just above one sextillionth of a second). The higher the mass (energy) of the virtual particle, the less time it will last. After that time, the two particles will annihilate each other and disappear. Due to their short duration, the existence of virtual particles has not been experimentally verified.

Is it possible for these virtual particles to become real under certain circumstances? Yes it is, and it is believed that there are at least two situations (somewhat drastic, it is true) where this could happen.

The debacle of determinism

Isaac Newton

By the end of the eighteenth century, Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation was well established. As this theory makes it possible to predict very accurately the orbits of the bodies in the solar system, the French astronomer Pierre Simon de Laplace believed he had sufficient reasons to say the following:

An intelligence that knew all the forces that animate nature, as well as the respective situation of the beings that make it... could cover in a single formula the movements of the largest bodies of the universe and those of the lighter atom. Nothing would be uncertain and both the future and the past would be present before his eyes.

This assertion became the dogma of deterministic materialism, a philosophical (not scientific) doctrine asserting that only matter exists (taking the term broadly) and that the whole history of the universe is determined. Therefore there is no human freedom, nor intentionality, nor final causes in nature. There are just efficient causes.

Laplace’s statement can be expressed in more modern terms:

If we knew the position and the momentum of all the particles of the universe at a given instant, we could predict all their past and future development.