Physics might be described as the science that deals with the nature of physical existence (my words).  It tries to reduce physical existence down to as few forces, particles and laws as possible.  Pure physics is, therefore, a reductionist activity.  ("Reductionism" says that the whole is the sum of its parts.  It's opposite, "holism", says the whole is more than the sum of its parts.)

So what can Physics tell us about God?   I'm not sure I can answer that question for all of you; but I'll share what it tells me about God, and this material is presented in these three sections.

Are we forced to come to the conclusion that natural causes are insufficient to account for existence and that there must be a supernatural cause for all matter, energy, and laws?

I cannot give an answer to this question that will satisfy everyone.  For one thing, it depends on the depth of scientific knowledge one has.  I have a pretty good undergraduate background in physics, and I think I've kept up on the subject adequately for teaching high school physics over the years.  But with my background I cannot give a presentation on this question that would satisfy Stephen Hawking.  The book, God and the New Physics, written for the layman, deals with the topic of natural versus supernatural cause.  (By Paul Davies, Simon & Schuster, 1983).  The bottom line in this book is that  physicists have an explanation for the existence of matter and laws and spacetime that will satisfy people who take a largely natural world view of existence.  

I used the words "largely natural" in the previous paragraph, because I think all of us are uncomfortable with a totally natural approach.  

A totally natural scenario goes like this:  Before the beginning (admittedly a meaningless phrase) there was a "singularity".  A singularity is described as a infinitesimally small "whatever" with enough energy to become the matter for the entire universe.  About eighteen billion years ago there was creation in the form of a big mega super humongous gigantic "bang" that, by natural processes, gave rise to fundamental particles and forces as well as space and time and physical laws.  After the "big bang", natural processes brought about the organization of a very tiny portion of the original matter/energy into the elements  that we humans organize on the standard periodic chart.   By natural processes certain elements organized to produce the carbon compounds necessary for life. Life arose by natural processes. Life has the natural property of evolving into increasingly complex forms.  At the end of the chain of biological evolution, we have humans, who are nothing more than a bunch of cells that are made of carbon compounds that are made of atoms that are made of electrons and quarks.

Furthermore, humans alone, among all life forms, have the capability of pondering physical existence.  But physical existence is not all we think about; we also ponder OUR existence.  I have not seen any chapters in biology textbooks dealing with the evolution of the cucumber - we are infinitely more interested in how we humans fit into all of the rest of existence. 

We see ourselves as the sole possessors of the ability to order the universe by thought and planning.  We find ourselves as creators in a universe that gives us unlimited building blocks  and great amounts of stored energy to sustain our creative activity.  In other words, we humans "do" something with our lives, while the rest of life just lives according to pre-programmed instincts.

And here is a contradiction.  If we are the result of natural processes, why should we think about what we "do" with our lives?   Just try it - can you, just for sixty seconds, decide to not be concerned with what you do with your life?  If we are the result of totally natural processes, "good" and "evil" would have no more meaning for us than my dog, Sable.   

"If there is no God, all things are permissible." - Fyodor Dostoevsky

In our common usage of the word "life" our very language thunders a non-natural, holistic view of existence!  Just take this test: When I ask you, "What are you doing in your life", do you respond by saying "Well, right now, I'm processing the air I've just inhaled, and oxygen is being absorbed by the alveoli of  my lungs and...."  Ridiculous - we ALL see existence as something more than the sum of physical building blocks governed by physical processes!!

I am amused by the fact that even those who persecute religion and religious people, cannot escape a non-natural world view.  I was told recently in an e-mail, "Get off you knees and do something with your life."  I have to conclude that "Mr. No-religion" is taking the position that one must "do" something with his life that is aligned with "Mr. No-religion's" world view.  So "Mr. No-religion" apparently does not see all human life as equivalent.  While this guy apparently hates religion, he has a non-natural world view.  A totally natural world view forces one to admit that all human lives, are equivalent because they are the result of the same natural processes.

So I cannot nail every skeptic's hide to the wall and make everyone admit that our orderly physical existence proves a supernatural existence.  On the other hand, even the most saintly saint, the most skeptical skeptic, or the most Hitlerian criminal is driven by the perception that human life is special and that we are more than organisms composed of cells that are composed of carbon compounds that are composed of atoms that are composed of electrons and quarks that were created by a "natural" big bang.

"The human spirit is never satisfied in a lasting way by anything less than God.  We were made for him, and anything less than Him leaves the vacuum of the human heart unfulfilled."  Just As I Am, Billy Graham autobiography, p. 729

So why doesn't God routinely violate the laws of physics  so we have some evidence of the supernatural?  Why doesn't God show Himself by doing something really spectacular or why doesn't He routinely alleviate human suffering?

I think anyone who has a religious world view has pondered their own version of this question.  I know that in some low points in my life, even in the past year, I have wished that God would make it easier for us by making Himself somehow more physically visible.  In one way, I feel inadequate presenting this subject in a forum where there is potential for anyone in the world to read this because, in comparison with many in the world, my life has been relatively trouble-free.

Nevertheless, whether we have had a life of struggle and trial or we have enjoyed a comfortable middle class life, I think there are four fallacies in asking questions like this.

Fallacy #1 - We think that the presence of God acting in a physical way would make a difference in our life.  

The Bible is full of stories where supernatural activities were performed - and guess what - it often didn't make any difference in the lives of the individuals to whom it happened.  

A basic conclusion of the opening narrative of the Bible in Genesis has to be that a Supernatural Being appeared in a physical way to a couple and the Supernatural Being was ignored!  The same Being supernaturally brought ancient Israel out of slavery,  and they turned around and worshipped a golden calf.  Judas was in the presence of God in the flesh for as long a time as most of us go to high school and he still contributed to the death of the son of God. Whether you believe these stories to be literal or fictitious, the Bible does not picture humans as automatically responsive when presented with incontrovertible physical evidence of God's presence.  Responding to God is not related to His physical appearance.

Fallacy#2 - We think God exists to reward the righteous and punish the wicked now.   Our relationship with God is not a teacher/student relationship where we are rewarded for "good" and reprimanded for "evil".  

There is a human parallel that helps us understand what our relationship with God is.  It is the relationship of marriage.  This analogy is a Biblical one since Paul alludes to it in Ephesian 5.  Have you ever been at a wedding and heard this wedding vow? "I, Joe, take Susie to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward in plenty and in want, in joy, and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish till death do us part."   I left out these phrases: and in want; and in sorrow, in sickness; till death do us part.  Mature adults begin marriage with the acknowledgement that we are in it for the long haul and that two will go through the ups and downs as one.  They will occupy the same seat of life's roller coaster until it comes to the end.  The same is true of God and us.  If we are in a high of health and wealth, that is the time to thank God for the ride and use our talents to do God's work.  If we are in a dip of sorrow, then that is the time stay together, and do God's work.  This is not to say that God will ignore our requests; but like a parent, God does not give a child everything he asks for.  At the end of the ride the Christian has the faith that a far more exciting ride awaits.

Fallacy #3 - We think our physical world is "real" and the supernatural world is "unreal, weird, or totally removed from experience."   Anyone who understands the nature of physics knows that we only directly experience the physical world at a Newtonian level - the level of things we can touch and see, not the level of atomic particles.  

When we try to apply Newton's laws to the world that we cannot see, there is  some success in the area of kinetic theory where we explain molecules as if they were miniature ping pong balls bouncing around.  Newton tried to explain light by assuming light was a supersmall superfast particle - it didn't work.  The deeper we delve into the unseen world, the farther removed we are from experience.  Finally, when we get into the atom and it's particles, we find that the rules are not at all like those governing bouncing ping pong balls.  

As we delve deeper and deeper into the world of fundamental particles, things get stranger and stranger.  Physicists call this world the "quantum world".  The quantum world, as far as physicists can tell, is the foundation of physical existence.  And the rules of this world are strange, to say the least.

How strange?  The "singularity" that became the universe is pretty strange (see "Existence of Stuff" section above), but I think nothing is as strange as the "many worlds" theory of quantum physics.  It is difficult to explain in a short paragraph and if you would like a layman's description of quantum physics, I would recommend the book In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, by John Gribbin, Bantom Books, 1984.  

The "many worlds" theory is the scientific foundation of  all the "parallel worlds" science fiction plots.  To describe this theory, let's suppose we reduce a decision down to the quantum level - an electron firing one way or another in our brain. Let's say that we are at an ice cream shop and an electron firing one way corresponds to a choice of "chocolate" and the electron firing the other way corresponds to a choice of "vanilla".  The many worlds interpretation of quantum physics says that when the decision is made the universe splits into two versions of itself that are identical in every respect except in one universe chocolate was chosen and in the other universe vanilla was chosen!  "It sounds like science fiction, but it goes far deeper than any science fiction, and it is based on impeccable mathematical equations, a consistent and logical consequence to taking quantum mechanics literally." (Gribbin, p. 238)

When you get to looking at the rules of the quantum world, you begin wondering, what does it mean for something to exist and what is really real??!!

Most of the physical world and all the spiritual world are removed from our experience.   Both the physical world and the spiritual world are "unreal, weird, and totally removed from experience".

Fallacy #4 - We think that the physical traumas and trials that happen to humanity are the worst thing that could happen to us."

I remember my Dad had a simple philosophy when we had the predictable troubles on our farm - when the pipes would freeze, when the truck would break down, when the hay got rained on, etc.  He would say at these times, "Well, it would be worse if we were sick."  I have, over the years, added  a corollary to this philosophy.  I told my kids, "It would be worse if you were sick; it would be worse yet if you sinned."  The sad thing about this corollary is, I don't know if I really believe it.  To tell the truth, I've so far enjoyed a comfortable middle class USA life.  My wife has been seriously ill a couple of times, but we have weathered those storms; I have never been seriously ill.  And I definitely don't look forward to a serious illness.  If I were calling the shots for the rest of my life, I'd have robust health until I died at 105, being shot  to death by a jealous lover!

But if we can look at life the way God sees it, and we will, we will see that the absolute worst condition that we can experience is to be in a condition of rejecting the love of God.

What does physics have to say about the nature of God?

1. Consciousness cannot be described by physics.   Consciousness is an enigma for physicists.  My animated graphic at the right describes the physics reductionist

point of view;  one event is caused by a previous event; which is caused by a previous event, etc.  Physics is puzzled by the fact that consciousness cannot be described by this model.  Consciousness is an effect without a cause, and the only way to describe such an event is to appeal to quantum reality.  "Theorists...argue that we must accept that, literally, everything is connected to everything else, and only a holistic approach to the universe is likely to explain phenomena such as human consciousness."  (Gribbon p. 229) It is interesting to ponder the fact that physical consciousness and non-physical consciousness (i.e. God) are equally impossible to understand.

3. Knowing that God does not reside in space and time does not answer all questions. If we accept the premise that God does not reside in space and time and if we apply the logic of physics we would have to conclude that not residing in time (eternal life) implies not residing in space also.  The problem is that the Bible speaks of angels, and angels are individuals.  And as far as we can understand, individuality requires space.  Also, as far as we can determine, each person granted eternal life will have a separate existence.  Separate  existences require space.  So, it seems that not existing in space and time, means that we will exist in some other way that still allows individuality.   Like I said, we will all be surprised!

…last verse of the hymn, "Amazing Grace"