![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/10\/GodCreator2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Last night I watched a fascinating documentary through Amazon Prime: a NOVA episode entitled \u201cEinstein\u2019s Quantum Riddle\u201d<\/a>. It was about advances in the area of quantum mechanics; specifically what is called \u201cquantum entanglement.\u201d Wikipedia<\/a> has a long, complicated article about it. But the gist of it (which the TV special summarized for the layperson) is as follows:<\/p>\n Quantum entanglement<\/b>\u00a0is a physical phenomenon that occurs when a pair or group of\u00a0particles<\/a>\u00a0are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in a way such that the\u00a0quantum state<\/a>\u00a0of each particle of the pair or group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance. . . .<\/p>\n Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by\u00a0Albert Einstein<\/a>,\u00a0Boris Podolsky<\/a>, and\u00a0Nathan Rosen<\/a>,[1]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0and several papers by\u00a0Erwin Schr\u00f6dinger<\/a>\u00a0shortly thereafter,[2]<\/a><\/sup>[3]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0describing what came to be known as the\u00a0EPR paradox<\/a>. Einstein and others considered such behavior to be impossible, as it violated the\u00a0local realism<\/a>\u00a0view of causality (Einstein referring to it as \u201cspooky\u00a0action at a distance<\/a>\u201c)[4]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0and argued that the accepted formulation of\u00a0quantum mechanics<\/a>\u00a0must therefore be incomplete.<\/p>\n Later, however, the counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics were verified experimentally[5]<\/a><\/sup>[6]<\/a><\/sup>[7]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0in tests in which polarization or spin of entangled particles were measured at separate locations, statistically violating\u00a0Bell\u2019s inequality<\/a>. In earlier tests, it couldn\u2019t be absolutely ruled out that the test result at one point could have been\u00a0subtly transmitted<\/a>\u00a0to the remote point, affecting the outcome at the second location.[7]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0However, so-called \u201cloophole-free\u201d Bell tests have been performed in which the locations were separated such that communications at the speed of light would have taken longer\u2013in one case 10,000 times longer\u2014than the interval between the measurements. . . .<\/p>\n Quantum entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally with\u00a0photons<\/a>,[10]<\/a><\/sup>[11 ]<\/a><\/sup>neutrinos<\/a>,[12]\u00a0<\/a><\/sup>electrons<\/a>,[13]<\/a><\/sup>[14]\u00a0<\/a><\/sup>molecules<\/a>\u00a0as large as\u00a0buckyballs<\/a>,\u00a0[15]<\/a><\/sup>[16]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0and even small diamonds.\u00a0[17]<\/a><\/sup>[18]<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Bottom line (beyond all the technical mumbo-jumbo of modern physics), is that \u2014 even assuming that this phenomenon is true and a fact \u2014 scientists have no explanation<\/em> for how it could happen as it does. It\u2019s one of those things where the knowledge of science comes to an end: like the origin of life, the causes of the origins of the Big Bang, DNA, and higher intelligence, and dark matter.<\/p>\n Einstein, as is well-known, had serious problems with quantum mechanics, with regard to its seemingly random and irrational nature, in relation to traditional notions of cause-and-effect. He famously stated, \u201cGod doesn\u2019t play dice.\u201d Einstein\u2019s \u201cgod\u201d was a pantheist one at best<\/a>, but he was no atheist, and recognized that the universe had an unexplainable higher order and beauty of design that any thinking person couldn\u2019t deny. I have argued that this was a broad, bare-bones version of the classic theistic teleological (design) argument.<\/p>\n This brings me in a roundabout way to my main point: science often gets to a place where it is completely baffled, but because it methodologically excludes God (which has essentially been the case since Darwin), and so often doesn\u2019t recognize its own inherent philosophical limitations (empiricism being only one form of knowledge among many), it rules out what is as plausible an explanation as anything else: God.<\/p>\n The most obvious example of this is Big Bang cosmology. This theory was formulated by a Catholic priest-scientist,\u00a0Fr. Georges Lema\u00eetre. It expressed in scientific detail what had already long since been present in the Bible: creatio ex nihilo<\/em> <\/a>(\u201ccreation from nothing\u201d). I\u2019ve written many times about the Big Bang theory and its relation to God:<\/p>\n Atheism: the Faith of \u201cAtomism\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[8-19-15]<\/p>\n Cosmological Argument for God (Resources)<\/a>\u00a0[10-23-15]<\/p>\n Dr. [Michael] Behe stated that Intelligent Design (ID) did\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0necessarily require\u00a0additional \u201cintervention\u201d<\/em>\u00a0by God after His initial act of creation. I found that interesting because I had thought that ID required that.<\/p>\n All Christians, it seems to me (who believe in the inspiration of revelation: the Bible), have to believe that 1) God created (Genesis, etc.), and 2) that God in some sense \u201csustains\u201d or \u201cupholds\u201d His creation, according to Hebrews 1:3 (\u201cupholding the universe by his word of power\u201d: RSV) and Acts 17:28 (\u201cIn him we\u00a0<\/b>live and move\u00a0and have our being\u201d). . . .<\/p>\n [It is a] belief in a non-material or immaterial force or power or spirit, if you will, that profoundly influences the material universe and its creative processes, and which itself seems ultimately beyond purely scientific or empirical analysis (precisely because it is non-material). . . .<\/p>\n [I]n this view, which can be synthesized with Intelligent Design (and is similar in many ways to theistic evolution), God designed or foreordained that complex structures would evolve, and life and consciousness, etc., by some unknown non-material, overarching, guiding principle that transcends science, or concerning which science can give us no clues or answers. He not only created scientific laws that work essentially on their own (hence can be observed and studied scientifically), but also \u201csupervises\u201d or ordains the entire \u201cproject\u201d: though not in an interventionist or supernatural \/ miraculous way. The processes and potentialities were there from the\u00a0beginning<\/em>, as a manifestation of His omnipotence and omniscience. It\u2019s just that some of them are\u00a0supra-scientific<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I submit that the same explanation that suggests itself with regard to the Big Bang and the unexplained mysteries of evolutionary process: the creative and \u201cupholding\u201d \/ omnipotent power of God, is applicable and plausible also as the explanation of how quantum entanglement is possible at all. I mentioned a relevant few verses above. Here are all of the ones along these same lines:<\/p>\n Job 38:33<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?\u00a0Can you establish their rule on the earth?<\/p>\n Nehemiah 9:6<\/strong>\u00a0. . . \u201cThou art the LORD, thou alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and thou preservest all of them; . . .\u201d<\/p>\n Wisdom 11:25\u00a0<\/strong>How would anything have endured if thou hadst not willed it?\u00a0Or how would anything not called forth by thee\u00a0have been preserved?<\/p>\n Acts 17:28<\/strong> . . . \u2018In him we live and move and have our being\u2019;<\/p>\n Colossians 1:17\u00a0<\/b>. . . in him all things hold together.<\/p>\n Hebrews 1:3\u00a0<\/b>. . . upholding the universe by his word of power . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is inspired revelation from God. God either does these things: establishes, preserves, holds together, allows to endure, and upholds all of His creation (which He brought into being from nothing) or He does not. Christians \u2014 if they are consistent \u2014 cannot disbelieve this. And God\u2019s power is as plausible an explanation of quantum entanglement as anything else: if only \u201cmethodologically atheist\u201d science will allow Him to be discussed at all.<\/p>\n If scientists seek the vaunted \u201cunified theory\u201d in physics, it\u2019s right in front of them: the central unifying, overarching factor or cause is God Himself. The Bible has taught it these past 2000 or more years. Modern science keeps indirectly verifying it, in effect, by its inability to explain origins or (as in our present example) the basis and ultimate causes of experimentally verified quantum mechanics.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0sciencefreak<\/a> (1-20-15)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Last night I watched a fascinating documentary through Amazon Prime: a NOVA episode entitled \u201cEinstein\u2019s Quantum Riddle\u201d. It was about advances in the area of quantum mechanics; specifically what is called \u201cquantum entanglement.\u201d Wikipedia has a long, complicated article about it. But the gist of it (which the TV special summarized for the layperson) is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":52181,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,112,172],"tags":[1048,1246,1241,3162,4114,11802,12154,662,12157,1248,12151,12148,1047],"class_list":["post-52172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-philosophy-science","category-trinitarianism-christology","tag-argument-from-design","tag-big-bang","tag-cosmological-argument","tag-creator","tag-einstein","tag-god-the-creator","tag-god-the-sustainer-of-the-universe","tag-intelligent-design","tag-omnipotence-of-god","tag-physics","tag-quantum-entanglement","tag-quantum-mechanics","tag-teleological-argument"],"yoast_head":"\nExchanges with Atheists on Ultimate Origins<\/a>\u00a0[11-19-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nCause of the Big Bang: Atheist Geologist Challenged<\/a>\u00a0[4-21-17]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAtheists & Inherent \u201cOmnipotent\u201d Creative Qualities of Godless Matter<\/a>\u00a0[7-26-17]
\n*<\/div>\nDialogue w Atheist on the Origin of the Universe<\/a>\u00a0[6-23-18]
\n*<\/div>\nDialogue with an Atheist on \u201cGod of the Gaps\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[6-24-18]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSeidensticker Folly #14: Something Rather Than Nothing<\/a>\u00a0[9-3-18]
\n*<\/div>\nSeidensticker Folly #38: Eternal Universe vs. an Eternal God<\/a>\u00a0[4-16-20]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe theory of evolution runs into the same insuperable difficulties when it comes to describing exact sequences and causes for evolutionary change: especially across large gaps, such as the origins of life and DNA and of large classification groups to other ones. It\u2019s entirely possible as a method that God used to create (theistic evolution), but without the inclusion of God, science cannot explain many key aspects of it.<\/div>\n<\/div>\nI developed this line of thinking in the article of mine where I last dealt with the theory of evolution: entitled, \u201cWhy I Believe in \u2018Non-Miraculous\u2019 Intelligent Design\u201d<\/a> (6-20-19). I will later tie it into the discussion of quantum entanglement:<\/div>\n\n