Down through the centuries, many proofs have been offered for the existence of a Supreme Intelligence. Some seem more convincing than others. One such argument, Saint Anselm’s ontological proof, seems to be nothing more than the twisting of words and logic to prove that if we claim to be able to think of an infinite being, then that being must exist or we would not be able to think of it as infinite.
When I conclude this purely mental exercise, I get caught up in its logic.
1) In order that the infinite being, which I can think of, to be infinite —
2) it must have existence or it would not be infinite —
3) which means I could not think of it in the first place.
If I ponder this paradox long enough, it gives me a definite headache.
But there are other proofs that are equally puzzling if not convincing. Certainly, the diversity and complexity of nature is incredible. Whether or not a complex bodily organ such as the human eye or a human brain with consciousness is following some evolutionary trend, seems to point to evolutionary laws which, at least at present, are simply recorded by scientists as happening but unexplained. Evolution follows so called laws discovered in nature, but it is possible that these laws were not discovered but created by human consciousness.
Even our limited logical minds are aware that “Nothing from Nothing Leaves Nothing” (Billy Preston Song). So I logically must agree with the singer. Scientists explain that the stars in the universe are slowly turning hydrogen into helium. They claim that our sun has used up only 2% of the energy it had when it first came into existence. Nevertheless, the sun, like all other stars, is slowly loosing heat and light. It is burning down. “But the Sun only has so much of this hydrogen fuel available to it. The Sun’s death will come when it runs out of fuel”.
But my approach to the existence of a being of another order, one that I will call the Supreme Being, comes from a very simple understanding of a perception that undergirds science; even though scientists don’t yet realize it or don’t want to. It is the nature of unexplainable human consciousness to want to know all things. Consciousness and logic realize that the quest for an ultimate particle is, indeed, impossible. Yet science keeps hunting and searching for it or for a unified law that will explain all the forces of the universe.
Using the CERN hadron collider buried 300 feet under the border between Switzerland and France, Science is currently seeking the whatever-it-was-ness that caused the Big Bang from apparent nothingness. This collider will advance the speed of protons until they are traveling just 3 meters slower than the speed of light. At this implausible speed, they will slam into protons traveling in the opposite direction, hopefully releasing particles which, until now, have only been mathematically hypothesized. The existence of these particles, particularly the Higgs Boson will help Science solve a number of perplexing issues and might help explain gravity, the glue that seems to hold the universe together.
But here is my point. Logic tells us that whatever secrets the Hadron Collider provides about the Big Bang — that scientists will still have to face the problem of human consciousness. This remarkable ability provides science with a way of looking at things — using logic. As a result, the human mind or brain cannot accept nothingness any more than it can accept a beginning arising from nothingness. Try as we might, consciousness will not allow such a contradiction in terms.
This paradox is similar to the ancient puzzle of Zeno (333-262 BC). He proposed that an arrow could never reach its target because it is always halfway there, then halfway there, then halfway there ad infinitum ad absurdum, and yet we know the arrow hits its mark. So in the final analysis, we are left with a simple, down to earth choice: either all is senseless or else we proclaim like Zeno “The cosmos is a divine being with a soul,” or “Credo in Unum Deum.”
Powered by Sidelines