Excerpt from the book
"Darwin's Temple of Deceit"
In his book, Human Intelligence Gone Ape, Josh Greenberger entertains us with clever, humorous and creative ideas about Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It is no big secret that proving the existence of God would automatically remove the element of faith from religion. In his book, however, Josh Greenberger comes dangerously close to doing just that without placing faith in harm's way. Mr. Greenberger does as much to clarify the relationship between God and science as Einstein's famous formula does to define the interchangeability of matter and energy. Mr. Greenberger's thought provoking and profound analysis is so essential to our grasp of the Creator, that there is only one thing I wish to add to it -- that it would have been my pen which generated this astute and intelligent insight:
(The following indented portion is an excerpt from Josh Greenberger's book, "Human Intelligence Gone Ape")
From a scientific point of view, the questions of "Where did our universe come from?" and "Where did God come from?" appear to be the same in principle. To a scientist, it seems like just a matter of adding or eliminating a step. But if he'd had any deeper understanding of the subject matter, he'd have known that his argument sounded as ridiculous as: if you say, "The baker baked the cake," then you have to ask, "Who baked the baker?" So why not eliminate the baker and just ask, "Who baked the cake?"
The answer, in a nutshell, is that when you talk about our universe you are not talking about the same set of rules which apply to God. Here's why: "Where did our universe come from?" is a legitimate scientific question. Nothing in our universe seems to have been around forever, nor does anything within it seem to have the potential to exist for eternity. This is apparently the process of our physical universe -- birth, accretion, formation, death, decay, destruction, etc. This makes curiosity about the origin of our universe downright scientific and not in the least bit philosophical. Furthermore, such curiosity is essential in studying the laws of Nature. Anything less would be stopping short of a truly scientific endeavor.
This, incidentally, is one reason why, as far as origins go, the big bang is a totally meaningless and "empty" theory. It really doesn't answer much. If our universe came from a big bang, where did all that mass or energy that caused the explosion come from? That is, long before that alleged big bang, when, where, and how did the basic elements of our universe come into existence? And this is not being philosophical or clever. This is a legitimate scientific question which must be answered if we are to take some scientific theories seriously. Was the evidence of "how it all began" destroyed in the explosion? Well, you don't need evidence to list the possibilities. What could possibly have caused our universe to come into existence? Another universe perhaps? Then where did that other universe come from? Or did it come from some big mass-spitting or energy-producing machine or monster? Then where did that machine or monster come from? No matter what you come up with, you will always be left with the question, "Where did it come from?"
Moreover, in a physical universe, being plagued with such an endless array of "Where did it come from?" seems quite puzzling. Although, the question has such a strong philosophical aura, it deals with a real and physical dilemma. How is it possible that the origin of something so fundamental as the basic elements which make up everything in our universe could be so difficult to prove scientifically? These basic particles are all around us; their origin should have been the easiest thing to prove. It's obvious that science has no answer. But not even a plausible theory? It's almost as if there was no way for our universe to have come into existence.
Well, maybe that's the answer -- there was no physical way for our universe to have come into existence. The laws of Nature, giving every indication that our entire universe is comprised of elements of finite potential, point in the direction of something of an infinite nature as the source of our physical universe. This "source" may not necessarily be easy to comprehend. Nevertheless, in light of the impossibility of sources to which we can relate on a physical level, this source, as incomprehensible as it may seem, must be the only rational explanation -- our universe must have come into existence through "something" which did not itself have to "come from" anywhere. What's more, this is not the "best" or the "most probable" explanation, this appears to be the only truly plausible explanation; the being which created our universe must be a being of eternity. For without this, we are left with explanations which cannot be verified or substantiated by science or logic.
Finally, common sense will tell you that to bring a universe such as ours into existence, this being would have to possess powers beyond our imagination and intelligence beyond our conception, and this being could not possibly be bound or limited in any way by the laws of Nature which govern our universe. Then, after putting these logical deductions together, you should arrive at a startling conclusion -- the concept which is God.
Aren't there enough ultra-sophisticated phenomena in this universe, from the microscopic to the macrocosmic, to warrant at least a consideration of an Intelligent Being as the source? I'm not talking about religion. I'm not talking about blind fanatical acceptance. I'm talking about an option which, by virtue of logic and reason, has at least as much merit as many scientific topics. In the twentieth century, the "theory" of God should tower high above many other scientific theories. An Intelligent Creator being introduced into science as a direct logical deduction stemming from the unfathomable genius behind the entire universe, would not be inconsistent with other topics discussed among scientists. If the concept of an Intelligent Creator seems to manifest itself in every corner of scientific endeavor, how can you simply dismiss it? Is entertaining thoughts of God really more "religious" or "spiritualistic" than some notions scientists have learned to accept yet have no idea whether or not they really exist? Or has scientific speculation become totally devoid of logic and completely a matter of whim and bias?
Although many notions which go beyond the basic concept of God might come under the heading of religion, the concept of God itself has in our time become more evident in scientific research and exploration than in any other time in earth's history. "Mixing science and religion" is not the case here. The outdated misconception that God is strictly a product of religion has been disproven by twentieth-century science. The concept of God can apparently be arrived at through more than one avenue of thought -- through science as well as religion. And it's this very fact that should move the concept of God away from the domain of philosophy and more toward reality. After such mind-boggling concepts as black holes, exploding universes, anti-matter, elusive subatomic particles, warped time, and curved space, God should hardly seem all that philosophical. Probably a lot more awe inspiring -- if all this is only His handiwork, God Himself must certainly be beyond human comprehension -- but not all that philosophical.
With all the logical evidence supporting the existence of God, there can be little question that the refusal of some scientists to entertain the concept of God, not even as a theory, constitutes more biased thinking than logical reasoning. Accepting God in the twentieth century hardly takes much complex reasoning. Not accepting God takes a lot of misguided determination. Completely dismissing the concept of God merely because it has been associated with religion for too long is as illogical as dismissing the idea of using wheels on a lunar module because wheels have been associated with cars for too long.
Now, the scientist's question "Where did God come from?" is not only not scientific, it's not even philosophical. It's downright nonsense. The notion that "something" has to come from "somewhere" is only a limitation of the universe we live in. Just as nothing in our universe can exist without time or space, so can nothing exist without having been born, formed, created, etc. But when you talk about God, the concept of "birth" is not applicable. When we talk about a Being which brought everything that exists into existence, we're obviously talking about an Ultimate Source to which we were logically led to for want of any other possible explanation. Which means that what we've actually done is reached the "end" -- there simply cannot be a source beyond this. As a result, the concepts of "origin" and "birth" cease to exist at this point and are only products of His Creation, and He can obviously not be bound by them. If He were bound by such things, He could not possibly be the source of all that exists; something would have to have existed before Him, and we'd be back to square one.
So, when we talk about God, we're talking about "that Final Source," an Original Source, or an Ultimate Existence, before Whom nothing else could possibly have existed. The concept of God, therefore, implies an Existence unlike any other existence; an Existence to Whom the terms "beginning" and "end" simply do not apply; an Existence to Whom "limits" and "boundaries" do not apply; an Existence from Whom every other existence must have originated; and an Existence so unique that His nonexistence is not even possible.
So, I don't think you can simply ask, "Where did our universe come from?" just to "save a step" and avoid asking "Where did God come from?" as our scientist would have preferred. Our universe, according to our laws of Nature, had to come from somewhere. And wherever it ultimately came from, that Source had to be the kind of Existence just described. As a result, not only can you not eliminate God from a discussion of the origin of our universe, but the very presence of our universe, even if it were not in any complex state, points to His unquestionable Existence. Consequently, eliminating the Creator of the universe from any discussion of the origin of the universe, is equivalent to eliminating trees from a discussion of the origin of apples. Instead of clarifying the issue, such an arbitrary elimination -- by a famous scientist who is presumably highly intelligent -- only shows dishonesty, some lack of reasoning abilities, and perhaps even a lack of respect for other people's intelligence. A truly scientific endeavor it is not.
By now, I have read and re-read the above profound masterpiece by Josh Greenberger at least a dozen times. Each time I discover new and insightful nuances in this truly stimulating essay. I would have gladly given up many a talent in exchange for the skill and insight needed to craft such brilliance. I can only hope that all who read this superb analysis by Mr. Greenberger are as inspired and enlightened by it as I am. Though the concept of a Creator is anathema to scientists, the brightest among them could not or would not so quickly shove God aside when attempting to elucidate the unfathomable. Albert Einstein was known as an avowed atheist. Yet, when he was lost for an explanation of physical phenomenon, he resorted to the term God on more than one occasion.