God and Universe

Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727) says:

"And for rejecting such a Medium, we have the Authority of those the oldest and most celebrated Philosophers of Greece and Phoenicia, who made a Vacuum, and Atoms, and the Gravity of Atoms, the first Principles of their Philosophy; tacitly attributing Gravity to some other Cause than dense Matter. Later Philosophers banish the Consideration of such a Cause out of natural Philosophy, feigning Hypotheses for explaining all things mechanically, and referring other Causes to Metaphysicks: Whereas the main Business of natural Philosophy is to argue from Phenomena without feigning Hypotheses, and to deduce Causes from Effects, till we come to the very first Cause, which certainly is not mechanical; and not only to unfold the Mechanism of the World, but chiefly to resolve these and such like Questions.

What is there in places almost empty of Matter, and whence is it that the Sun and Planets gravitate towards one another, without dense Matter between them?

Whence is it that Nature doth nothing in vain; and whence arises all that Order and Beauty which we see in the World?

... does it not appear from phaenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite space, as it were in his Sensory, sees the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly by their immediate presence to himself. "

— Sir Isaac Newton  Opticks, 2nd edition (1718), Book 3, Query 28, 343-5.


"And from true lordship it follows that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful; from the other perfections, that he is supreme, or supremely perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to eternity; and he is present from infinity to infinity; he rules all things, and he knows all things that happen or can happen."

— Sir Isaac Newton The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687), 


"He rules all things, not as the world soul but as the lord of all. And because of his dominion he is called Lord God Pantokrator. For 'god' is a relative word and has reference to servants, and godhood is the lordship of God, not over his own body as is supposed by those for whom God i~ the world soul, but over servants. The supreme God is an eternal, infinite, and absolutely perfect being; but a being, however perfect, without dominion is not the Lord God. "

— Sir Isaac Newton  The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687)


"It seems probable to me that God, in the beginning, formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportions to space, as most conduced to the end for which He formed them; and that these primitive particles, being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them, even so very hard as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary power being able to divide what God had made one in the first creation. "

— Sir Isaac Newton  Opticks (1730), 344


Sir.  Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) Says:


"But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.— Albert Einstein

Letter (24 Jan 1936). Quoted in Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981), 33.


"In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton ’s laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematical methods by means of deduction.

— Albert Einstein

Autobiographical Notes (1946), 19. In Albert Einstein, Alice Calaprice, Freeman Dyson , The Ultimate Quotable Einstein


"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison. But he certainly believes that, as his knowledge increases, his picture of reality will become simpler and simpler and will explain a wider and wider range of his sensuous impressions. He may also believe in the existence of the ideal limit of knowledge and that it is approached by the human mind. He may call this ideal limit the objective truth. "

— Albert Einstein Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics (1938), 33.


"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not bring us any closer to the secrets of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice."

— Albert Einstein  Letter to Max Born, 4 Dec 1926. The Born-Einstein Letters: Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916-1955 (1971),


"Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought."

— Albert Einstein


"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, ie by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.
However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. "

— Albert Einstein Letter (24 Jan 1936) replying to a a letter (19 Jan 1936) asking if scientists pray, from a child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City . In Albert Einstein, Helen Dukas (ed.) and Banesh Hoffmann (ed.), Albert Einstein, The Human Side (1981), 32-33


"You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world that objectively exists. "

— Albert Einstein  Letter to Max Born (7 Sep 1944). In Born-Einstein Letters, 146. Einstein Archives 8-207. In Albert Einstein, Alice Calaprice, Freeman Dyson, The Ultimate Quotable Einstein (2011), 393.


Erwin Chargaff  (1905 – 2002) says:



"In science, attempts at formulating hierarchies are always doomed to eventual failure. A Newton will always be followed by an Einstein, a Stahl by a Lavoisier; and who can say who will come after us? What the human mind has fabricated must be subject to all the changes—which are not progress—that the human mind must undergo. The 'last words' of the sciences are often replaced, more often forgotten. Science is a relentlessly dialectical process, though it suffers continuously under the necessary relativation of equally indispensable absolutes. It is, however, possible that the ever-growing intellectual and moral pollution of our scientific atmosphere will bring this process to a standstill. The immense library of ancient Alexandria was both symptom and cause of the ossification of the Greek intellect. Even now I know of some who feel that we know too much about the wrong things. "

— Erwin Chargaff  Voices in the Labyrinth: Nature, Man, and Science (1979), 46


Stephen Jay Gould (1941 –  2002) says



Stephen Jay Gould (1941 –  2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. 

"Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton 's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome."

— Stephen Jay Gould  'Evolution as Fact and Theory', in Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (1983, 1994), Chap. 19.

Atheism defines the cosmos with all the properties that are assigned to God to Matter itself.

Stephen Hawking
The law is the creator.
In his  1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking drew on the device so beloved of Einstein, when he described what it would mean for scientists to develop a "theory of everything" – a set of equations that described every particle and force in the entire universe. "It would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God,"


How did the universe really begin? Most astronomers would say that the debate is now over: The universe started with a giant explosion, called the Big Bang. The big-bang theory got its start with the observations by Edwin Hubble that showed the universe to be expanding. If you imagine the history of the universe as a long-running movie, what happens when you show the movie in reverse? All the galaxies would move closer and closer together, until eventually they all get crushed together into one massive yet tiny sphere. It was just this sort of thinking that led to the concept of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand. Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10-43s ( what is called Plank time)second after the Big Bang. Before this time all four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.


During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons—the building blocks of atoms—formed when photons collided and converted their energy into mass, and the four forces split into their separate identities. The temperature of the universe also cooled during this time, from about 1032 (100 million trillion trillion) degrees to 10 billion degrees. Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium.

       The next major step didn’t take place until roughly 300,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled to a not-quite comfortable 3000 degrees. At this temperature, electrons could combine with atomic nuclei to form neutral atoms. With no free electrons left to scatter photons of light, the universe became transparent to radiation. (It is this light that we see today as the cosmic background radiation.) Stars and galaxies began to form about one billion years following the Big Bang, and since then the universe has simply continued to grow larger and cooler, creating conditions conducive to life.

       Three excellent reasons exist for believing in the big-bang theory. First, and most obvious, the universe is expanding. Second, the theory predicts that 25 percent of the total mass of the universe should be the helium that formed during the first few minutes, an amount that agrees with observations. Finally, and most convincing, is the presence of the cosmic background radiation. The big-bang theory predicted this remnant radiation, which now glows at a temperature just 3 degrees above absolute zero, well before radio astronomers chanced upon it.








Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.  


Thus according to Hawking  the Universe began as a singularity.  Since it began as a singularity it has a beginning.  Therefore it has a cause.

It is this their second book attempt to coverup to show up. In his 2010 book, "The Grand Design," Hawking said, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."  "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."  ‘M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law.

Here is the argument as seen in "Was the Universe Created?", Vic Stenger to establish that laws of Physics just came from nothing.  Here is the argument:


  • Not everything that begins has a cause.  This is because quantum transitions can occur without a cause. 
  • The universe  did not really began as a singularity because, the t=0  events occured   by the quantum uncertainity principle. 
  • Therefore the universe need not have had a beginning or a cause and so no God is needed.


The uncertainity is because of the 10^ 32 s the Planck's uncertainity value of time.  We cannot make any certain statements what happens during this time.  Quantum transitions occur without a cause.   The problem is where did the quantum uncertainity Law come from?


As Paul Davies writes,

"But what of the laws?... Quantum physics has to exist (in some sense) so that a quantum transition can generate the cosmos in the first place." Davies, Paul, 'God and the New Physics'

O ur inability to identify a cause does not necessarily mean that there is no cause.

Nature (Prakriti in Sanskrit)- I am sorry - It is "Nothing" eternally existed with that Planck's constant and the uncertainity Principle as the  Physical Law even before it came to existence?


In the article A modern creation myth David Pratt points out.
 "In the beginning, a tiny bubble of spacetime, a billion-trillion-trillionth of a centimetre across (10-33 cm), popped spontaneously into existence out of nothing as the result of a random ‘quantum fluctuation’. Due to a ‘phase transition’, it was suddenly seized by an intense antigravitational force which caused it to expand trillions of time faster than the speed of light for a few billion-trillion-trillionths of a second. The antigravitational force then disappeared, and the inflationary phase of accelerating expansion came to an abrupt halt amid an enormous burst of radiation. The heat energy and gravitational energy of expanding space then produced matter and, as the universe cooled, more and more structure began to ‘freeze out’ – first nuclei, then atoms, and finally stars, galaxies, and planets."  David Pratt  May 2012

 Here is the Potential energy of the universe of Hawking.

Notice the existence of an unphysical region.  Correspondingly the unphysical region has a real wave function.  The only conclusion is there is a wavefunction for "Nothing" the implication seems to be that the unphysical region is not physical, but what then? A consciousness? A person even though there is no material body?  Does that indicate the existence of a God.  Uncertainly only means we cannot have certain information from that region.  It is the built in freedom of the universe. If this is not evidence of something beyond the physical world what is?

The argument seems to be, "But if we're willing to admit the existence of uncaused things, why not just admit that the universe is uncaused and cut out the middleman?  David Hume wondered the same thing: "But if we stop, and go no farther, why go so far? Why not stop at the material world?"  He goes on... " By supposing it to contain the principle of its order within itself, we really assert it to be god; and the sooner we arrive at that Divine Being, so much the better. When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy." David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Norman Kemp Smith (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril, 1947), pp. 161-62.

Quantum  Mechanics and Causality

It appears that many people has been trying to prove that in Quantum Mechanics virtual particles can appear and disappear without a cause.  This is certainly wrong.  Quantum Mechanics is still within the Physical Law which is basically the Uncertainty Principle which is defined.  Apart from that the Quantum Space is not empty or vacuum or nothingness.  When we speak of nothingness we are simply thinking of non-existence of matter.  The quantum essence is not necessary material.  It is usually described as probability waves (whatever that means) which give potential to create mass.  So even in the quantum world the law of cause and effect still remains.  Only that the beginning of the quantum field is still at large and needs to be explained as a beginning. So the universe as we propose is again inclusive of the quantum field.

It is certainly possible to assume that the universe existed alongside of the One Ultimate or within the Ultimate.  If the universe had a beginning the following argument is acceptable.
 If the Universe was potentially within the Ultimate when was it realized? 
When did the time start?  Because time starts only when changes occur and is only a measure of change. 
One of the problem with the modern Philosophy and Physics is to assume space and time apart from matter and change.

In it all we miss the total picture of the Philosophy of Science.  “We have learned that we do not see directly, but mediately, and that we have no means of correcting these colored and distorting lenses which we are, or of computing the amount of their errors. Perhaps these subject-lenses have a creative power; perhaps there are no objects.” Emerson (1803–1882), Experience.

Theistic dualists defines the cosmos as isolated, filled with beings (with qualities of Mind, Spirit and Cosciousness) and Matter as seperate from God, outside of God,  created by God  from nothing - ex nihilo

It is clear what is happening here.  Theism has taken God the creator out of the cosmos and placed him outside the cosmos with all the Supreme Mind, Spirit and Consciousness.  The problem therefore is more of the process and what defines universe.  All this problem has in fact been solved long before they were created by the ignorance of later religious philosophers.  This solution is the Theology of the Person - The theory of Purusha.