Can People Judge God?

July 23, 2020 - 2 Av 5780

In an interview titled Neil deGrasse Tyson on God with CBS Sunday Morning in 2017, Tyson (astrophysicist, cosmologist, author, science communicator, and television host) was posed the following question:

Interviewer: Do you believe in God, a Creator?

Here was Tyson’s response:

So, the more I look at the universe the less convinced I am that there is something benevolent going on. So, if your concept of a Creator is someone who is all-powerful and all-good, that’s not an uncommon pairing of powers that you might ascribe to a Creator, and I look at disasters that afflict earth and life on earth - volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, disease, pestilence, congenital birth defects - you look at this list of ways that life is made miserable on earth by natural causes and I just ask, “How do you deal with that?” So philosophers rose up and said, “If there is a God, God is either not all-powerful or not all-good.”

It seems that Tyson’s argument here operates on an assumption that is as common as it is demonstrably false. That huge assumption is that one can know the internal workings of God's mind sufficiently to accurately re-characterize Him. Let us explain this by way of a metaphor.

So for instance, let's say that your company fires 20 employees overnight. Do you have sufficient insight into that decision-making process to determine that it was either a bad, wrong, or even an evil decision?

Or let us say that the air conditioner in your work building suddenly turns off. Do you have enough information to say that the building’s administration has taken the day of and gone to the golf course? There can be a number of reasons for why the AC has suddenly turned off. If you can't make these determinations with something as simple as a company decision or deactivated AC, you will have a hard time making it with something such as natural disasters.

Now, the Bible does give us some sense of insight into how this type of thing works on a very general level, but it doesn't give us a one-to-one formula for every specific event that occurs, nor does it expect us to even think in those terms. This, by the way, is a mistaken tendency often made by religious people as well - we cannot know or claim to have access to cause-and-effect in terms of current events. This is a practice that is presumptuous and should probably be discouraged. The thing is sealed.

Tyson’s line of reasoning makes another relatively common fallacy that the Bible is interested in providing us reasons for natural phenomenon. If you read or study the Bible you will find that only on rare occasion does it invest any effort in explaining why natural disasters occurred, so that this position is demonstrably false. The Bible places a much heavier focus on interpersonal events than on natural ones. This type of mistake could have been avoided with just a little more insight and perhaps research into the topic at hand.

Tyson’s being an accomplished astrophysicist does not qualify him as a professional in the field of religion, theology, or philosophy. It would have been perfectly acceptable if he had just confessed his ignorance on the interviewer’s question and instead offered his opinion. A little humility goes a long way.

Does God Exist? - Part 2

What Kind of Evidence is there for God's Existence?

Some form of description of God needs to be given if we are to even try to understand how to demonstrate His Existence. God is not finite or corporeal. He does not possess any deficiencies, is not timebound, and created and supercedes everything. Evidence for such a Being by definition must be qualititavely different than anything that exists in the physical, natural world.

Given the descriptions above, from an empirical perspective, you can only look for God in the effect that He has on other things, i.e., on what He does. This is not necessarily because God desires to hide Himself, although that is a Jewish tenet described in many sources. It is rather because the world He created cannot contain Him. Nevertheless, a cursory examination of the laws that govern the physical world reveals intelligence and order. It is as if a person tries to build a computer to which he can download all of his brainpower. To put this into perspective, it is currently believed that a human brain contains more information than all of the libraries in the world combined. It would be an unfruitful search to shop for a computer capable of holding such a vast amount of information. With God we are speaking about an Infinite Being, which means that the world is infinitely incapable of containing Him in any capacity. We have just provided evidence that an Intelligence beyond this world is vested within the confines of administering this planet.

By nature, beings can only create things that resemble them in some way. Every created thing possesses properties of its creator. Computer processing, for example, is in some respect modeled on the processing of the human brain. Even though computers can process information at a faster rate than the human brain, they are limited by human imperfection (hence computer crashes, bugs, fried circuit boards, etc.) As an aside, computers can process information faster than the human brain because that is their sole purpose and because it does not confuse them. Human beings must register and comprehend their thoughts to function properly. If a human being's brain processed thoughts at the magnitude of a computer, he might have a nervous breakdown. There are actual mental conditions whereby a person cannot slow down or stop thoughts from entering his mind. One purpose of meditation is actually to slow down the mind so that a person can isolate his thoughts.

Since God is free of all deficiencies, it reasons that in some way the world reflect His Perfect Nature. While the world is a finite place and clearly not free from imperfection, it is as close to being perfect as it can be for a created environment with limitations and restrictions. Nature functions seemingly without continual orchestration and the living beings within it provide for each other, even if this means that they consume each other. In another way, limitations are part of perfection because they force compassion. We have just provided evidence that the limitations of the world indicate God's Perfection.

Regarding God's non-temporeal nature, scientific inquiry into the mechanics of time produces some bizarre results. Admittedly this is an area that I do not completely understand, but a few different theories seem to propose that at any level smaller than the currently smallest known distance (Plank length), "the structure of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects, and it is impossible to determine the difference btween two locations less than one Plank length apart." Since space "ceases to exist" at this tiny level, time also ceases to be relevant. Unless in the future humans discover a way to measure an even smaller unit, it seems time "does not exist" at any more elementary level than the Plank length.

Another theory, which as well I do not fully understand, also points to the conclusion that time does not exist. This theory is actually an equation known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, in which "utterly lacked a time variable. The symbol t denoting time had simply vanished. Taking the result literally, time doesn't exist." (word search: Does time exist?)


Comment below.
Previous Post
Does God Exist? (Part 1 - Definition of Proof)

Related Post
What Kind of Evidence Exists for the Sinai Event?

Does God Exist? - Part 1

Article Sections

• The Definition of Proof
• Black Holes
• Application to God

The Definition of Proof

What does the word proof mean? The common understanding of the word proof means absolute proof. When you ask someone to give you proof, you expect them to provide such a good argument that you are left with no choice but to agree. That is an incorrect understanding of the word proof. Proof comes from the word prove, which means to provide evidence supporting a particular conclusion. When you ask for proof of something, you are really only asking for evidence of something. There is no such thing as absolute proof because by nature proofs are based on logic, and every argument has opposing logical arguments. Everything is measured by ideas. It is true that opposing arguments range in number and strength, but as long as somebody can argue the opposite of your point, you cannot have access to absolute proof. There will always remain that little portion of doubt. As long as you rely on logic, there is always room to see something in a different way.

However, we should understand this doubt for what it really is. The little portion of doubt that remains as a result of opposing arguments should be of no concern. All that matters when you make a decision about anything is that you have enough evidence, as stated in the previous paragraph. You are not frozen in indecision until you have absolute proof, because it is unattainable. The remaining doubt is simply a function of the inability to provide evidence in every single area and under every single set of circumstances. Therefore, although having sufficient evidence to support a conclusion is not identical to absolute proof, it still justifies making a decision based on the available information. It is perfectly justified to be satisfied with belief regardless of the presence of unknowns. Because absolute proof does not exist, the presence of unknowns do not mean that your reasoning is wrong.

Back to Top

Black Holes

This is also why it's a fallacy to criticize somebody for relying on faith in the absence of absolute proof. There is no absolute proof for anything. For example, on many topics scientists hold fundamentally different views with each other, such as black holes. Black holes are relevant because according to the Black Holes website, it "... is now thought that almost every galaxy has a giant black hole at its center... If this is true, then black holes may play a pivotal role in the formation of conditions in the universe that are necessary for life." Further, according to Astronomy Cafe, they indirectly "...tell us that our relativistic theory of gravity and space-time provided by Einstein's general relativity is fundamentally correct. When we use these same equations to study cosmology we have some confidence that they may be correct and give us answers that make sense." Notice that the author of this site said that "we have some confidence [my emphasis] that they may be correct..." Even though they only have "some confidence" that theories based on the existence of black holes are correct, most "... physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that 'there are no black holes' — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks."

Despite their importance to physics and cosmology, there is fundamental disagreement as to their nature. One of the common opinions regarding black holes is that because "no light can get out, people can't see black holes. They are invisible... But scientists can see how the strong gravity affects the stars and gas around the black hole." According to According to National Geographic, in an as of yet unreviewed paper, Stephen Hawkings suggests the relatively radical idea that black holes are not "perfectly 'black.'" "Instead," he says, "they emit radiation just beyond their event horizons..." This means that it is possible to observe black holes without solely relying on observing their surroundings.This implies a change in the understanding of black holes indicating that many accepted theories on the mechanics of the universe will have to be rewritten. According to Space.com, Hawking's proposal, dating back to 1974, "violates a basic piece of quantum theory, the idea that information cannot be destroyed."

Back to Top

Application to God

This type of thinking is also applicable when determining if God exists, although in a slightly different way. The existence of black holes is absolutely fundamental to both theoretical and practical matters, and scientists are willing to accept their existence even though they are invisible. Their decision to do so is justified because there is ample evidence of their existence. The existence of God, Who is invisible, can as well be "detected." The important thing to understand here is that no two detections are created equal. The type of evidence you can have for any given thing depends completely on what you are trying to prove. For example, you can't measure heat with a barometer, and you can't measure air pressure with a thermometer. Trying to measure each of these things with the wrong device would yield no results. This should not lead you to the conclusion that heat does not exist! This is an important principle to keep in mind when requiring proof. Giving up on trying to prove something because you expect the wrong kind proof is your own fault.

Detecting God is similar; you can only do so if you use the right tools and the right type of evidence. Some people mistakenly claim that it should be impossible to not believe in God if He really Exists. There should be overwhelming evidence of His Existence. Yet from a logical perspective it is hard to understand why this should be the case at all. Could God not conceal His Existence if He sought to? After all, we accept the existence of invisible black holes and, according to one of the common opinions, "people can't see black holes. They are invisible... But scientists can see how the strong gravity affects the stars and gas around the black hole," as cited earlier (NASA.gov). People cannot see God, but they can observe the effects of God's Existence on a variety of things described in part 2 of this post.

Back to Top

Comment below.


Next Post
Does God Exist? (Part 2 - What Kind of Evidence is There for God's Existence?)

Related Post
What Kind of Evidence Exists for the Sinai Event?

What Kind of Evidence Exists for the Sinai Event?

Contents

• Introduction
• When Did the First Passover Observance Occur?
• Is There Evidence That a Large Group of People Wandered in the Desert?
• Are There Extra-Biblical Reports of the Sinai Event?
• The Greatness of the Event
• The Relevance of the Event to the Reporting Nation
• Commonality of Reporting

Introduction
Having just described what counts as evidence and the differences between sufficient evidence and absolute truth, we can apply it to the Sinai event. Because my goal is only to define what counts as evidence, I am not actually presenting research done on this particular topic, which the reader may do on his own time.

If you find yourself wondering if there is any evidence for the Sinai event, you would have to first determine what consists as evidence. What counts as evidence given the nature of this event? This depends on how can we categorize the Sinai event. Because the Jews make supernatural claims about the Sinai event, and do not claim the same about anything else, can we really put it any existing category? Even though the Sinai event possesses clear differences from any natural event, it nevertheless shares some things in common with other historical events. After all, Jews do consider the Sinai event to be historical, i.e., having actually occurred. If it was historical then there are certain historical elements left behind by the Sinai event.

Back to Top


When Did the First Passover Observance Occur?
Of course religious Jews will tell you that the first Passover observance was none other than the exodus from Egypt with Moshe as the leader at the Hand of God. But the critic would argue that you cannot use your assumption to prove your point, and in this case he would be right. So we can ask the critic to provide us another date or historical point for the observance of the first Passover. The critic has to provide us with this information because the majority of Jews, across the religious spectrum, observe Passover. Because it has become common practice, it has to have some origin. Our question to the critic is, "What is Passover's point of origin if not the Sinai event, as we claim?" Was it during the Sinai event or did the Jews observe the first Passover at a later point in history? It is certainly plausible that the Jews started keeping Passover, for example, in the 13th century and linked it to a theoretical exodus. However, there is no evidence supporting the conclusion that the first Passover was observed, in this example, in the 13th century. We are left with two categories of possibilities. The first category is that the first Passover occurred at the Sinai event. The second category is that it occurred at any point in time after the claimed Sinai event under different circumstances and for any set of reasons.

Back to Top


Is There Evidence That a Large Group of People Wandered in the Desert?

What kind of evidence would substantiate our claim that a large group of people spent a significant period of time in the desert of Sinai? The first place to look would be the actual locations where they camped. Rashi counts that the Jews made 37 total encampments over the 40 years between the exodus and the settlement of Canaan. This means that the Jews spent slightly over a year in each place (on average 1 year and 12 days). That would be a good starting point. If you succeed in matching the current sites with their original locations, you could look for evidence and other remains of a presence in those areas. For example, what kind of things do people leave in a location that they've camped in for a year? Clothing? Clay cooking vessels? Religious articles? Animal remains (camels, donkeys)? Burial plots? What can we find according to the description given to us in the Torah? It is important to develop an idea of what type of evidence you are looking for before looking for it. You must also consider whether the aforementioned articles have deteriorated by now.

Back to Top


Are There extra-Biblical Reports of the Sinai Event?
Before attempting to find extra-Biblical reports of the Sinai event, we should ask whether it is common for nations to produce reports about events that occurred to other nations. This in part depends on three things:

• The Greatness of the Event

  It would be unlikely for another nation to report on an insignificant event, even if the event occurred to their own nation. But the revelation of the Torah was a great event, so we could assume that another nation or nations kept some written record of it. For example, if we entertain the notion that Jewish hands, and not God wrote the Torah, we should note that there is no reference to birth or death dates or what type of food people ate. From its absence we can conclude that this information was irrelevant.
  
• The Relevance of the Event to the Reporting Nation

  Even if the Sinai event was great, according to their own understanding, it might not have made a great impact on other nations. Why would neighboring nations put the effort in creating a written record of an event that in their estimation did not affect them? To contrast, the only other people we can expect to have kept their own records of the Sinai event are the Egyptians. Although disagreement exists among Egyptologists, the Ipuwer Papryus records "some suggested parallels with the Book of Exodus." The Huffington Post ran an article titled Passover in Egypt: Did the Exodus Really Happen? - that addresses the following points:
  

  • The Ipuwer Papyrus
  • The Israelites' Travel Itinerary and the Egyptian Maps
  • Aper-el's Tomb
  • The Shiphra Papyrus

  We are not interested in providing absolute evidence, which does not exist, but only sufficient evidence for the Sinai event.
  
• Commonality of Reporting

  Not yet written
  

Back to Top


Related Posts

• Does God Exist? (Part 1 - Definition of Proof)
• Does God Exist? (Part 2 - Evidence for God's Existence)