The big bang as proof of God

(Published in GralsWelt 32/2004)

The world is full of wonders, both in the greatest and in the smallest.
One of these miracles - something that we cannot explain - is the fine interplay, the precisely balanced coordination of the laws of nature. These had to be exactly the same, could not be slightly different, so that suns, planets, plants, animals and people could arise in our universe.

If we ask about the reason of things, there are different ways of searching for answers:

"God's spirit are the laws of nature."
Stephen Hawking

The Theologians have it easy: Your question is “Why is there something?”. And the answer is: "Because God decided that something should be!"
The theologians thus avoid answering questions because they know that there can be no answer to such fundamental questions from a human point of view, at best there can be clarification through revelation.

Natural scientist make it harder. They recognize that it is pointless to ask "why", but instead they ask "when", "where", "how" and look for plausible explanations. It has been shown that astrophysics, for example, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the Creator, but that the concept of God is compatible with the knowledge of modern physics.

Forces that rule the world
According to current knowledge, four basic forces hold the material world together:
* The strong interaction binds core building blocks to one another. Their range is very small, their power enormous.
* The weak interaction with an extremely short range, which is particularly important for subatomic particles (e.g. quarks, neutrinos, leptons). It is difficult to prove because it is masked by the strong and electromagnetic interaction.
* The electromagnetic interaction that is important with charged particles. Its range is theoretically infinite, but its long-range effect will soon be shielded by other charged particles.
* At first glance only weak gravity with (theoretically) infinite range, which holds celestial bodies together and forces them on their orbits.

A universe that is supposed to produce life and consciousness is dependent on an unimaginably precise fine-tuning of these basic forces. If natural forces, or charge, or the mass of core building blocks were only slightly different, then the universe that we know would not exist:

A slightly larger gravitation, for example, would have slowed the expansion of space too much, all matter would have long since sunk into a black hole. A slightly lower gravity would have prevented the formation of stars with planetary systems, since all matter would have escaped into space too quickly.

From the beginning of the universe, already in the “big bang”, the coordination of forces, masses and charges was so fine that scientists compare this equilibrium with a pencil balancing on the tip. With gravity as an example, a deviation of a thousandth of a billionth (= one trillionth) from the actual value would have been sufficient, and a completely different cosmos would have arisen (5).

There are countless other “miracles” on the way to the creation of life (6); For example, the formation of the carbon atoms in the interior of the sun, which are essential for all life.

The researcher of this nuclear fusion, Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) said:

"Nothing has shaken my atheism as much as this discovery" (5).

Viewed in this way, the much-cited “big bang” is not a happy term; the laws of nature, which were finely tuned in the Big Bang, speak more for terms such as “original chord” or “original harmony”.

The anthropic principle
From the first seconds of the formation of the universe until today there were and are countless events that had to take place in a very specific way so that ultimately beings could arise who reflect on their existence and their meaning.

So the extremely precise selection of the laws of nature is not a coincidence, but an expression of the will of the creator? Maybe even a physical “proof of God”?

Because according to the latest scientific findings, the universe looks almost "constructed", that is, purposeful, following a plan of creation.

That would be the opposite of the "game of chance", which is otherwise taken for granted in the natural sciences and which rejects all teleological (targeted) influences on natural development.

Physicists are reluctant to take an anthropocentric (human being as the center) point of view that suggests human beings “as the goal of the universe”, but they discuss the anthropic principle, which recognizes very specific prerequisites as necessary for life, especially intelligent life, to be possible.

That weak anthropic principle says that our universe is such that observers (thinking beings) can be produced (4). Supporters of this principle are of the opinion, for example, that there can be any number of universes. If the natural constants in a universe are different from the only one accessible to us, then there is no life there, no people, no one who could think about this world. In our universe the conditions are exactly (by chance?) That thinking, brooding beings could develop.

To the question "why is our cosmos like this and not different" there is the simple answer: "Because otherwise we would not exist", in which one can also see a circular argument:

"Because we exist, the cosmos has to be the way it is ..."

That strong anthropic principle states that very specific conditions allowed the history of the universe to run exactly as we know it, so that (inevitably) higher life could arise (4).

Accordingly, the cosmos is based on a construction principle. Because even the slightest deviations in one or the other natural constant would have created a fundamentally different universe that is beyond our imagination and in which there could be no self-conscious life.

The question of who coordinated natural forces and natural constants so precisely with one another remains open, because that is a religious, not a scientific question.

“We can understand the universe as a message written in a secret code, as a kind of cosmic hieroglyph that we are only just beginning to decipher. Who wrote this message? If the riddle of this cosmic code has been forced upon us by its author - do not our efforts to decipher a kind of pattern, something like in an increasingly clear mirror in which the originator of the message renews the knowledge he has of himself? "
Jean Guitton, French Philosopher (cf. 5)

“On the assumption that the natural constants can be chosen more or less freely, Lee Smolin has calculated the probability with which our universe would exist, and he comes up with the insanely small value of 1:10 to the power of 229. Before you imagine this number search, I suggest that you first imagine the approximate number of all protons in the observable universe: I assume that you fail with this mere 10 to the power of 80. Incidentally, the probability of winning the lottery is 1: 13,983,816, which is significantly better than 1:10 to the power of 8. "
According to Dr. Manzel: “The Gospel of the Natural Sciences” (cf. 5).

Does science meet God's will?
Our exact sciences have come an interesting path in the past centuries: pushed into the opposition by the theologians' lack of insight, many scientists committed themselves to the fight against superstition and thus also to the exposure of untenable church teachings.

A seemingly unbridgeable gap between science and belief opened up.

As the level of knowledge increases, the latest findings become more and more transcendent, physical observations more and more unreal, physics and metaphysics begin to touch.

That is not surprising. Because between the earthly and the transcendent, between this world and the hereafter, there is no limit. It is the limitations imposed by our senses or the limits of the physical measurement possibilities that make these areas appear separate.

The anthropic principle is located at the transition area between physics and metaphysics. It is not a strictly scientific theory as it cannot be proven or refuted; but it stimulates thought, perhaps to search for God.

The theoretical physicist Paul Davies:

"It may sound strange, but in my opinion science offers a safer approach to God than religion" (2, p. 15).

The researchers will not find the old father god of the theologians of the Middle Ages in the universe.

For this they encounter the work of an almighty Creator who has anchored his will in the universe in the form of living laws. These natural or creation laws speak His language and give an idea of His creative will.

You can also read the article under "History of religion" "Does God exist?" and under "Science" the contribution "A constructed universe?".

(1) Breuer, Reinhard: "The anthropic principle", Meyster, Vienna 1981.
(2) Davis, Paul: “God and modern physics”, Goldmann, Munich, 1989.
(3) Guitton, Jean / Bogdanov, Grichka and Igor: "God and Science", DTV, Munich 1993.
(4) http; //