{"id":131803,"date":"2016-04-16T13:30:50","date_gmt":"2016-04-16T13:30:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=131803"},"modified":"2016-04-22T06:10:15","modified_gmt":"2016-04-22T06:10:15","slug":"top-german-scientist-explains-why-god-exists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=131803","title":{"rendered":"Top German Scientist Explains Why God Exists"},"content":{"rendered":"

Presented with pictures, captions, and an endnote by Lasha Darmooon<\/em> — <\/em>Darkmoon April 16, 2016<\/h1>\n
BARBARA DROSSEL<\/a><\/span>, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the\u00a0University of Darmstadt<\/a><\/span>, Germany, talks with Nigel Bovey about God and the New Physics. She believes that God is the most likely explanation for the existence of the universe and its mysterious workings.<\/strong><\/h5>\n

GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS<\/h2>\n

INTERVIEWER NIGEL BOVEY: \u00a0<\/strong>Professor, what is theoretical physics?<\/h5>\n

\"Professor<\/a><\/p>\n

PROFESSOR BARBARA DROSSEL:<\/strong> It is physics done with pencil and paper and computer modelling rather than laboratory experiments. It focuses on mathematical and computational analysis to explain how and why things happen.<\/h5>\n
The rest of the interview will be conducted in Question and Answer form, with Nigel Bovey asking the questions (Q) and Professor Barbara Drossel (A) answering them.<\/em><\/h5>\n
Q: <\/strong>\u00a0Why did you choose to study science?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0I was around 13 when I decided I wanted to be a scientist. At that age, I started, or at least tried, to read about Einstein\u2019s theory of relativity. I enjoyed reading science fiction and had a female teacher for maths and physics. She was a role model for me. I found science fascinating. Understanding nature is so rewarding. I am driven by the wish to understand it.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0As a scientist, you work with the laws of nature. Where did those laws come from?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> They have been there since the origin of the Universe.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0How fixed are those laws?<\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0The laws of physics are not an exact and complete reflection of nature. Laws of physics are an idealisation \u2013 an approximation that works very well \u2013 but they have limits in terms of validity. Newton\u2019s laws, for example, have limits in the quantum world or in relation to relativistic speed or cosmological distances. For everyday purposes, Newton\u2019s laws work very well.<\/h5>\n
Therefore, because the laws of nature are, at best, approximations, we should be wary of basing world views upon them. We should not invest them with authority beyond their capability. For example, people built a mechanistic world view based on Newton\u2019s laws and said that everything runs deterministically. The advent of quantum mechanics and chaos theory showed that nature is much less predictable than that.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0Is it also the case that Christians should not base their theology on a particular scientific theory?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A: \u00a0<\/strong>We need to distinguish between scientific conclusions and philosophical interpretations. Many people claim that it is a scientific conclusion that there is no God, or that if one scientific idea is true then there can be no God. This lacks honesty. That is not what science is saying; these are philosophical interpretations.<\/h5>\n
\u2014 \u00a0\u00a7 \u00a0\u2014<\/h5>\n

\u201cWe should be wary of basing world views upon the laws of nature\u2026\u201d<\/h3>\n

Q: \u00a0What is your model of the origin of the Universe?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0Big bang, followed by expansion, the formation of hydrogen atoms, stars and galaxies some 13 billion years ago. That\u2019s the scientific explanation. As a Christian, I believe that God created the Universe and that the laws of nature come from him. He is the ultimate origin.<\/h5>\n
Some scientists look at the Universe and conclude that for life to be possible on Earth, the Universe appears to be finely tuned.\u00a0Astronomer Royal Martin Rees<\/a><\/span>, for example, argues that the Universe is the way it is because of just six numerical values within the laws of nature. Some people then suggest that if the Universe is finely tuned, there must be a fine-tuner, ie, God. Is that a satisfactory conclusion?<\/h5>\n
In response to this principle, astronomer\u00a0Fred Hoyle<\/a><\/span>, who was an atheist, said it sounded like a put-up job. To me, it is the most natural explanation \u2013 that God wanted the Universe to be such that there will be life and humankind, so he made the conditions to enable that to happen.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0Science tells us that the chemical elements that make up life were formed in stars. The big bang is dated in terms of billions of years, human life on earth in a shorter time-span. Why did it take so long?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0God has time. Indeed, he is beyond time. The processes he set up are such that it takes billions of years until a star burns all its hydrogen, and then it takes the next generation of stars and maybe even a third generation.<\/h5>\n
\u2014 \u00a0\u00a7 \u00a0\u2014<\/h5>\n

\u201cBelieving in God makes so much sense of so many things\u2026\u201d<\/h3>\n

Q: \u00a0Can we conclude from the fine-tuning argument that there is a God?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0No. The fine-tuning argument is not proof. It is not science to conclude that God exists because the Universe appears to be finely tuned. But it\u2019s a very convincing philosophical interpretation of the observation of fine-tuning.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0To what extent do atheist scientists use the notion of many universes \u2013 the multiverse \u2013 to explain the presence of life on Earth because they dismiss the possibility of a Creator?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0If you start with the assumption that there is no God, then matter and natural laws are the ultimate reality. Therefore, it is not unnatural to conclude that there is a multiverse. It is always dangerous to attribute motives to other people, but I think some people are using it as an alternative to the God narrative.<\/h5>\n
I cannot completely rule out the existence of the multiverse but I just don\u2019t think that it is plausible. And I see no reason why we should assume it exists.<\/strong><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"TheMultiverseTheory-73220\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Q: \u00a0New atheists claim that not only are the laws of nature the ultimate reality but they are also the only reality. From that, they conclude that there is no God. Does that add up?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A: \u00a0New atheists say that scientific statements are the only valid statements. But such a claim cannot itself be proven scientifically. They cannot apply the scientific method to justify the claim, so they are being inconsistent. Perhaps, also, they have too simplistic a view of science.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0To what extent did the big bang need a \u2018Big Banger\u2019?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0Scientifically, not necessarily, there are other logical possibilities, many of them beyond science. We can say it just happened and we don\u2019t know why. We can say \u2018somebody\u2019 made it happen. We could say there is a substrate such as a quantum vacuum that caused big bangs all over the place. We could say there has been a continuous cycle of big bangs.<\/h5>\n
When the big bang theory was first suggested, many scientists rejected it because they thought the Universe was eternal, because they thought there was no God and that the laws of physics had been acting eternally \u2013 the steady state theory.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0As a theoretical physicist, you can prove mathematical statements. The multiverse is a theory that is yet to be proved. Can you prove that God exists?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0Physics is an empirical approach to the world. Only those things that can be tested and proved empirically fall within physics. The only field where you can do proofs is the branch of mathematics known as logic, because a proof means you deduce something from starting assumptions.<\/h5>\n
In mathematics, for example, there are axioms of geometry. Once you accept these, you can prove many things as logical deductions, where elements of the answer are already contained within the basic assumption.<\/h5>\n
God is not the object of scientific research or mathematical proofs, so we cannot prove him.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0If not knock-down proof, do you have evidence that God exists?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A: \u00a0I think there are good reasons for believing in God. Philosophically, there are three ways in which physics raises deeper questions. First, why are there laws of nature \u2013 these underlying principles \u2013 at all? The natural explanation would be that there is a lawgiver.<\/h5>\n
Secondly, why are our minds capable of understanding these laws? To me, the plausible and convincing answer is that God wanted us to understand his thoughts.<\/h5>\n
Thirdly, why is the Universe such that life can arise? We know that the ratios of the fundamental constants must have very precisely the values they have, otherwise the whole thing fails. A purely materialistic explanation would be that our Universe is one of many universes where the ratios are different. I find theism a much more plausible explanation.<\/h5>\n
Morally, there is a deep knowledge that there is an absolute right and wrong, and that there is truth and beauty.<\/h5>\n
There are also historical arguments. My faith is based on the person of Jesus, as revealed through the Gospels. I think those accounts of his life, in particular of the Resurrection, are historically reliable.<\/h5>\n
Then there is the experience of countless people throughout history, whose lives have been changed as a result of encountering God. If there is no spiritual reality behind it, such life-changing transformation is inexplicable.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0Science tells us that much of our world operates invisibly. Is asking someone to believe in an unseen Creator the same as asking them to believe in the existence of the unseen power of electricity?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0There are some similarities and some fundamental differences. Things that are investigated with scientific methods are qualitatively different from questions about God. C.\u00a0S.\u00a0Lewis once said that he believes in God as he believes that the sun has risen \u2013 not only because he can see the sun but also because by the light of the sun he can see other things. Believing in God makes so much sense of so many things.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0Your field of research is statistical physics. Are we here by design or are we the product of random accident?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0Scientifically, a process that involves a lot of chance and some rules often gives very definite outcomes \u2013 in fact, there are chance and rules behind many patterns in nature, and we can predict these patterns.<\/h5>\n
Even though the evolutionary process has a lot of randomness in it, we cannot claim necessarily that the outcome would have been much different. There are some things that are just bound to happen. When there is a chance event, it doesn\u2019t mean that God didn\u2019t want it to happen this way \u2013 that\u2019s a different level of explanation.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0So chance and divine purpose are not related?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0Chance is involved in the biological process \u2013 that egg plus that particular sperm made me and not my sister. In one sense it is by chance that we are who we are and not someone different. However, that does not mean that God does not want us. He wanted humankind as a whole and he loves us individually.<\/h5>\n
We are made as social individuals who are capable of love, who know about values and who search for meaning. Deep within us there is a yearning for meaning and eternity.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0Stephen Hawking has been working on a \u2018theory of everything\u2019 that would unify the four fundamental forces of nature. If such a theory ever emerged, would it support the contention that science had all the answers?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0A grand unifying theory would say that the interaction of the basic particles determines everything else that happens on the material level in the Universe. This would not mean that God does not exist but it would mean if there\u2019s a personal God, either he would have to interfere with what the particles and forces do, and somehow introduce additional forces, or he would have to programme all his future actions into the initial state of the Universe. I do not think such a theory will be found.<\/h5>\n
The theory is a very reductionist view. Why should the particles and fundamental forces of electromagnetism and gravity be the most important reality? Those particles would not be what they are if the Universe didn\u2019t have the symmetries, conservation laws and degrees of freedom it has. You can say the whole determines the parts, not the parts determine the whole. So, I have a completely different view of science.<\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0In the film \u2018The Theory of Everything\u2019, the Hawking character says that cosmology is the religion of the intellectual atheist. Is it?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
A:<\/strong> \u00a0Any scientific theory can be turned almost into a religion. This is not just done with cosmology, but also with complexity theory. Because there is a spiritual dimension to the Universe, there is a sense of awe and wonder. But that doesn\u2019t mean there has to be a contradiction between science and belief in God. The question about the existence of God \u2013 the question about the ultimate reality and the basis of everything else \u2013 is completely different from scientific theorising.<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Q: \u00a0New atheists argue, though, that evolution is by definition atheistic and does away with the need for a Creator.<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n
A: \u00a0Such a view isn\u2019t scientific; it\u2019s an interpretation of the science. It is evolutionism. Science says all life has a common origin and has developed over a long process. The theory of evolution deals with the mechanisms of how species change over time. Why should this be incompatible with belief in God?<\/strong><\/h5>\n

\"EmilysQuotes.Com-universe-strange-weird-imagine-amazing-science-intelligent-dream-Arthur-Stanley-Eddington\"<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cI think there are good reasons\u00a0for believing in God.\u201d
\n\u2014 Prof. Barbara Drossel<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n

Endnote by Lasha Darkmoon<\/h2>\n

When one of the world\u2019s most renowned atheist philosophers\u2014a man who debated God with CS Lewis at Oxford 50 years ago and was adamant that God could not possibly exist\u2014when such a man does a complete U-turn and admits he was wrong, we have to sit up and think.<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Such a man is Professor Anthony Flew, a noted scholar who straddled the worlds of philosophy and science and who died at the age of 87 in 2010.<\/strong><\/h5>\n
What makes the distinguished professor\u2019s conversion even more compelling is that his is not\u00a0a\u00a0religious<\/em> conversion in the sense of being \u201cborn again\u201d, or of suddenly being touched by a vague and woolly \u201cmysticism\u201d. On the contrary, this is a conversion based on startling new discoveries in biochemistry and DNA science that are impossible to ignore. These recent developments in science show that the unbelievable complexity of the physical world not only make it unlikely, but also virtually\u00a0impossible<\/em>, that all this complexity should have arisen by mere chance and the hit-and-miss workings of evolution.<\/strong><\/h5>\n
In other words, the only possible explanation for this \u201cintegrated complexity\u201d is the existence of an Intelligent Designer.<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n
If you have the time, check out this related article with its two short videos:
\nFamous Atheist Changes His Mind, 2 videos, 7 mins.)<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/h5>\n

Source <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

God and the new physics: presented with pictures, captions, and an endnote by Lasha Darmooon <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":133,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[61,23,30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131803","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-Commentary","category-Fringe_Science_New_Discoveries_and_Developments","category-The_Unexplained_esoteric_and_hidden_knowledge"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131803","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/133"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=131803"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131803\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":131812,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131803\/revisions\/131812"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=131803"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=131803"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=131803"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}