Fr. Robert Spitzer
Does
modern physics provide evidence for the existence of God? This
article presents a general overview of the answer to that question (a
more thorough treatment may be found in my recent book, New Proofs
for the Existence of God). I will divide the topic into three parts:
-
Can Science Give Evidence of Creation and Supernatural Design?
-
What is the Evidence for a Beginning and What are the Implications for Creation?
-
What is the Evidence of Supernatural Intelligence from Anthropic Fine-Tuning?
Can
Science Give Evidence of a Creation and Supernatural Design?
We
should begin by clarifying what science can really tell us about a
beginning of the universe and supernatural causation. First, unlike
philosophy and metaphysics, science cannot deductively prove a
creation or God. This is because natural science deals with the
physical universe and with the regularities which we call “laws of
nature” that are obeyed by the phenomena within that universe. But
God is not an object or phenomenon or regularity within the physical
universe, so science cannot say anything about God. Moreover, science
is an empirical and inductive discipline. As such, science cannot be
certain that it has considered all possible data that would be
relevant to a complete explanation of particular physical phenomena
or the universe itself. It is always open to new data and discoveries
which could alter its explanation of particular phenomena and the
universe. This can be seen quite clearly in revisions made to the Big
Bang model.
So
what can science tell us? It can identify, aggregate, and synthesize
evidence indicating that the finitude of past time in the universe as
we currently know it to be and conceive it could be. Science can also
identify the exceedingly high improbability of the random occurrence
of conditions necessary to sustain life in the universe as we
currently know it to be and conceive it could be.
Even
though scientific conclusions are subject to modification in the
light of new data, we should not let this possibility cause us to
unnecessarily discount the validity of long-standing, persistent,
rigorously established theories. If we did this, we might discount
the majority of our scientific theories. Thus, it is reasonable and
responsible to attribute qualified truth value to such theories until
such time as new data requires them to be modified.
What
is The Evidence for a Beginning and what are the Implications for
Creation?
The
arguments that suggest the finitude of past time (i.e. that time had
a beginning) are basically of two types: (a) arguments about the
possible geometries of spacetime and (b) arguments based on the
Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). Though the arguments we shall
give may conceivably have loopholes, in the sense that cosmological
models or scenarios may be found in the future to which these
arguments don’t apply, their persistence and applicability to a
large number of existing cosmological models gives them respectable
probative force. Until such time as they are shown to be invalid or
inapplicable to empirically verifiable characteristics of our
universe, they should be considered as justifying the conclusion that
it is at least probable that the universe had a beginning.
A
Beginning in Physics Implies A Creation of the Universe
Before
examining this evidence, it is essential to discuss the implications
of a beginning (in physics) for a creation of our universe. In
physics, time is something real, and it has real effects on other
physical phenomena. Thus, the point at which the universe comes into
existence is also the point at which physical time comes into
existence.
How
does this imply a Creator? First, in physics, nothing physical could
exist prior to the beginning point (indeed there is no “prior to
the beginning point” because there is no physical time).
Secondly,
if the physical universe (and its physical time) did not exist prior
to the beginning, then it was literally nothing. It is important to
note that “nothing” means “nothing.” It does not mean a
“vacuum” or “a low energy state of a quantum field,” “empty
space,” or other real things. Vacuums, empty space, and low energy
states in quantum fields are dimensional and orientable – they have
specific characteristics and parameters, but "nothing" is
not dimensional or orientable, and it does not have any specific
characteristics or parameters because it is nothing. For example, you
can have more or less of a vacuum or empty space, but you cannot have
more or less of nothing because nothing is nothing.
Thirdly,
nothing can do only nothing, because it is nothing. To imply the
contrary is to make nothing into something. The classical expression
is right: “from nothing, only nothing comes.”
Fourthly,
if nothing can’t do anything, then it certainly cannot create
anything. Thus, when the universe was nothing, it could not have
created itself (made itself into something) when it was nothing,
because when it was nothing, it could only do nothing.
Finally,
if the universe could not have made itself into something when it was
nothing, then something else would have had to have made the universe
into something when it was nothing, and that “something else”
would have to be completely transcendent (completely independent of
the universe and beyond it). This transcendent (and independent)
creative force beyond our universe (and its space-time asymmetry) is
generally termed “a Creator.” Therefore, a beginning in physics
implies a transcendent powerful creative force (i.e., a “Creator”).
Was
the Big Bang the Beginning?
In
view of the fact that a beginning in physics implies a Creator, many
physicists with a naturalistic orientation would like to avoid the
necessity of such a beginning. For this reason, they have proposed
that the Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe. Before we
can assess this hypothesis, we will want to get a few facts about the
contemporary Big Bang Theory.
The
Big Bang Theory was proposed originally by a Belgium priest by the
name of Fr. George Lemaitre who used it to resolve a problem (the
radial velocities of extra galactic nebulae) connected with
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Though Einstein did not at
first affirm the idea of an expanding universe, he later believed it
because of its overwhelming verification. Indeed, it is one of the
most rigorously established theories in physics today.
Essentially,
the contemporary Big Bang Theory holds that a big bang occurred
approximately 13.7 billion years ago (plus or minus 200 million
years). It may be analogized to a balloon blowing up where the
elastic on the balloon is like the space-time field (in general
relativity, space-time can actually stretch, expand as a whole, warp,
vibrate, and change its coordinate structure according to the density
of mass-energy in it).
Now,
going back to our analogy, suppose there are paint spots all over the
balloon. Notice that as the balloon expands (i.e. as space-time
stretches and expands as a whole), all the paint dots (which may be
likened to galaxies) move away from each other. Our universe has been
doing something like this for 13.7 billion years.
Our
observable universe seems to have a finite amount of mass-energy. It
has approximately 4.6% visible matter (matter-energy that can emit
light, electromagnetic fields, etc.), 23% dark matter (which
interacts with gravity, but does not seem to have luminescent or
electromagnetic activity), and 72.4% dark energy (which seems to be
like a field attached to a space-time field causing space-time to
accelerate in its expansion). The visible matter in our universe
seems to be approximately 10^55 kilograms which is approximately
1,080 baryons (protons and neutrons – particles with significant
rest mass).
Since
the time of Fr. Lemaitre, the Big Bang Theory has been confirmed by
multiple, distinct data sets which come together around a similar set
of numbers and values: Edwin Hubble’s’ Redshifts (which shows
that all galaxies are moving away from each other); Arno Penzias’
and Robert Wilson’s discovery of the 2.7 degree Kelvin uniformly
distributed radiation which is the remnant of the Big Bang; evidence
from the cosmic background explorer satellite (COBE); and further
evidence from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). This
is why most physicists consider the Big Bang to be a rigorously
established physical theory.
Was
the Big Bang the beginning of the universe? Many physicists think
that it was because the Big Bang was the moment at which space-time
came into existence and because there is no physical evidence for a
period prior to the big bang.
However,
some physicists believe that the Big Bang was not the beginning of
our universe which opens the possibility for a pre-Big-Bang period of
indefinite length (perhaps avoiding a beginning and all of its
implications for a creation). This hypothetical pre-Big-Bang period
is made possible through quantum cosmology (which allows the universe
to operate in a space-time smaller than the minimums required by
general relativity). Currently, string theory is one hypothetical
candidate for quantum cosmology in which some physicists (including
Stephen Hawking) have placed considerable hope. (Those of you
interested in additional detail on quantum cosmology and string
theory will want to read the Postscript to Part One in New Proofs for
the Existence to God).
String
Theory allows for the possibility of higher-dimensional space, which
in turn, allows for two possible pre-Big-Bang periods:
-
A multiverse (a mega universe which coughs out multiple bubble universes, one of which is our universe)
-
An oscillating universe in higher dimensional space (e.g. two three-dimensional membranes interacting and colliding through a four-dimensional bulk space-time).
It
is not important to know all the details of a multiverse or an
oscillating universe in higher dimensional space, because there is
only one relevant question: Do these speculative scenarios themselves
require a beginning or can they go indefinitely back into the past?
It
so happens that a considerable amount of work has been done in the
area of space-time geometry proofs which conclude that all
inflationary model universes, multiverses (which must be inflationary
in order to exist), and oscillating universes in higher dimensional
space must have a beginning. These extraordinary proofs suggest the
probability that our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be
situated) must have a beginning, which implies a transcendent
Creator. So what are these proofs?
Evidence
of a Beginning from Space-Time Geometry Proofs
There
are three pieces of evidence arising out of space-time geometry
proofs which indicate a beginning of our universe or any speculative
multiverse in which our universe might be situated. It also indicates
a beginning of oscillating universes – even oscillating universes
in higher dimensional space. These proofs are so widely applicable
that they establish a beginning of virtually every hypothetical
pre-Big-Bang condition which can be connected to our universe. They,
therefore, indicate the probability of an absolute beginning of
physical reality which implies the probability of a Creator outside
of our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated).
Since
1994, three proofs or models have been developed that show that not
only our universe, but any multiverse and inflationary bouncing
universe must have a beginning: 1) The 1994 Borde-Vilenkin Proof, 2)
The modeling of inflationary universes by Alan Guth and others, and
3) The 2003 Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (the BVG Theorem).
The
1994 Borde-Vilenkin Proof
Arvin
Borde (Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of
California Santa Barbara) and Alexander Vilenkin (Director of the
Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University) formulated a proof in
1994 that every inflationary universe meeting five assumptions would
have to have a singularity (a beginning of the universe/multiverse in
a finite proper time)1. Our universe meets all the conditions in this
proof. In 1997 they published a paper on their discovery of a
possible exception to one of their assumptions (concerning weak
energy conditions) which was very, very unlikely within our universe.
Physicists, including Alan Guth (the Victor Weisskopf Professor of
Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and father of
inflationary theory) did not consider this exception to be relevant:
“...the technical assumption questioned in the 1997 Borde-Vilenkin
paper does not seem important enough to me to change the conclusion
[that the 1994 proof of a beginning of inflationary model universes
is required].”2 Therefore, the 1994 proof still has general
validity today.
Alan
Guth’s 1999 Analysis of Expanding Pre-Big-Bang Models
Guth
concluded this study as follows: “In my own opinion, it looks like
eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning...As hard as
physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all
the models that we construct have a beginning; they are eternal into
the future, but not into the past.”3
The
2003 Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (the BVG Theorem)
Borde,
Vilenkin, and Guth joined together to formulate an elegant and vastly
applicable demonstration of a beginning of expanding universes (in a
famous article in Physical Review Letters). Alexander Vilenkin
explains it as follows:
“Suppose, for example, that [a] space traveler has just zoomed by
the earth at the speed of 100,000 kilometers per second and is now
headed toward a distant galaxy, about a billion light years away.
[Because of the expansion of the universe as a whole], that galaxy is
moving away from us at a speed of 20,000 kilometers per second, so
when the space traveler catches up with it, the observers there will
see him moving at 80,000 kilometers per second. [As the universe
continues to expand, the relative velocity of the space traveler will
get smaller and smaller into the future]. If the velocity of the
space traveler relative to the spectators gets smaller and smaller
into the future, then it follows that his velocity should get larger
and larger as we follow his history into the past. In the limit, his
velocity should get arbitrarily close to the speed of light [the
maximum velocity attainable by mass energy in the universe].”4
The
point where relative velocities become arbitrarily close to the speed
of light constitutes a boundary to past time in any expanding
universe or multiverse. Though the conclusion of Borde, Vilenkin, and
Guth is somewhat technical for non-physicists, its importance makes
their precise words worth mentioning:
"Our argument shows that null and time like geodesics are, in
general, past-incomplete [requiring a boundary to past time] in
inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided
only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 hold along
these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the
one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under
reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when
extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the
inflating region of space-time in a finite proper time."5
This
proof is vastly applicable to just about any model universe or
multiverse that could be connected with our universe. Alexander
Vilenkin put it this way in 2006:
"We made no assumptions about the material content of the
universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by
Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some
modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption
that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets
below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should
certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion
is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible."
6
Physicists
do not use the word “impossible” very often. So, Vilenkin’s
claim here is quite strong. The reason he is able to make it is that
there is only one condition that must be fulfilled – an expansion
rate of the universe greater than zero (no matter how small).
It
is important to note that Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth applied their
theorem to the string multiverse as well as to higher dimensional
oscillating universes. I present their own words here (which might be
quite difficult for non-physicists) because they give a sense of the
authors' own appreciation of the vast applicability of their theorem:
"Our argument can be straightforwardly extended to cosmology in
higher dimensions [arising out of string theory/M Theory]. For
example, [1] in [some models of a string multiverse], brane worlds
are created in collisions of bubbles nucleating in an inflating
higher-dimensional bulk space-time. Our analysis implies that the
inflating bulk cannot be past-complete [i.e. must have a boundary to
past time]. [2] We finally comment on the cyclic Universe model [in
the higher dimensional space of string theory] in which a bulk of
four spatial dimensions is sandwiched between two three-dimensional
branes...In some versions of the cyclic model the brane space-times’
are everywhere expanding, so our theorem immediately implies the
existence of a past boundary at which boundary conditions must be
imposed. In other versions, there are brief periods of contraction,
but the net result of each cycle is an expansion...Thus, as long as
Hav > 0 for a null geodesic when averaged over one cycle, then Hav
> 0 for any number of cycles, and our theorem would imply that the
geodesic is incomplete [i.e. must have a boundary to past time].7
The
boundary to past time (required in the BVG theorem) could indicate an
absolute beginning of the universe or a pre-pre-Big-Bang era with a
completely different physics. If it is the latter, then the
pre-pre-Big-Bang period would also have to have had a boundary to its
past time (because it would have a rate of expansion greater than
zero). Eventually, one will reach an absolute beginning when there
are no more pre-pre-pre-Big-Bang eras.
This
is an extraordinary conclusion, because it shows that a beginning is
required in virtually every conceivable pre-Big-Bang
scenario—including the string multiverse and oscillating universes
in higher dimensional space. By implication, then, even if there were
multiple pre-Big-Bang eras, it is likely that these eras would have
to have an expansion rate greater than zero, which means that they
too would have to have a beginning, which would make an absolute
beginning virtually unavoidable. This absolute beginning would be the
point at which the universe came into existence. Prior to that point
the universe (and its physical time) would have been nothing, which
as we saw above, implies a Creator.
Exceptions
to this theorem are very difficult to formulate and are quite tenuous
because they require either a universe with an average Hubble
expansion less than or equal to zero (which is difficult to connect
to our inflationary universe) or a deconstruction of time which is
physically unrealistic. (For an extended discussion of these
exceptions, you may consult Chapter One, Section III.D-E of New
Proofs for the Existence of God). For this reason all attempts to get
around the BVG Theorem to date have been unsuccessful. Even if
physicists in the future are able to formulate a hypothetical model
which could get around the BVG Theorem, it would not mean that this
hypothetical model is true for our universe. It is likely to be only
a testimony to human ingenuity. Therefore, it is probable that our
universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated) had an
absolute beginning. This implies a creation of the universe by a
Power transcending our universe.
There
is another impressive set of data which corroborates the above three
space-time geometry proofs, namely, the Second Law of Thermodynamics
(i.e. entropy). The constraints of time and space here will not
permit me to address this topic, however, those interested in
explication of it may consult Chapter One (Section III A-C) of New
Proofs for the Existence of God.
In
conclusion, the evidence from physics (from both space-time geometry
proofs and the second law of thermodynamics) indicates the
probability of a beginning of our universe. In as much as a beginning
indicates a point at which our universe came into existence, and
prior to that point that the universe was nothing, then it is
probable that the universe (and any hypothetical multiverse in which
it might be situated) was created by a transcendent power outside of
physical space and time.
What
is the Evidence of Supernatural Intelligence from Anthropic
Fine-tuning?
There
are several conditions of our universe necessary for the emergence of
any complex life form. Many of these conditions are so exceedingly
improbable that it is not reasonable to expect that they could have
occurred by pure chance. For this reason many physicists attribute
their occurrence to supernatural design. However, some other
physicists prefer to believe instead in trillions upon trillions of
“other universes” (which are unobserved and likely unobservable).
Before
discussing which explanation is more probative, we need to explore
some specific instances of this highly improbable fine-tuning. We may
break the discussion into two parts:
-
The exceedingly high improbability of our low entropy universe, and
-
The exceedingly high improbability of the anthropic values of our universe’s constants.
We
will discuss each in turn.
The
High Improbability of a Pure Chance Occurrence of Our Low-Entropy
Universe
A
low-entropy universe is necessary for the emergence, development, and
complexification of life forms (because a high entropy universe would
be too run down to allow for such development). Roger Penrose has
calculated the exceedingly small probability of a pure chance
occurrence of our low–entropy universe as 10^10^123 to one. How can
we understand this number? It is like a ten raised to an exponent of:
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
This
number is so large, that if every zero were 10 point type, our solar
system would not be able to hold it! Currently, there is no natural
explanation for the occurrence of this number, and if none is found,
then we are left with the words of Roger Penrose himself:
“In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we
live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of
the phase space of possible universes—about 1/10^10^123 of the
entire volume, for the situation under consideration.”
What
Penrose is saying here is that this occurrence cannot be explained by
a random, pure chance occurrence. Therefore, one will have to make
recourse either to a multiverse (composed of bubble universes, each
having different values of constants) or as Penrose implies, a
Creator (with a super-intellect).
The
High Improbability of Five Other Anthropic Conditions (Based on
Cosmological Constants)
A
cosmological constant is a number which controls the equations of
physics, and the equations of physics, in turn, describe the laws of
nature. Therefore, these numbers control the laws of nature (and
whether these laws of nature will be hospitable or hostile to any
life form). Some examples of constants are: the speed of light
constant (c= 300,000 km per second), Planck’s constant (ℏ = 6.6 x
10-34 joule seconds), the gravitational attraction constant (G = 6.67
x 10-11 ), the strong nuclear force constant (gs = 15), the weak
force constant (gw = 1.43 x 10-62), the mass of the proton (mp = 1.67
x 10-27 kg), rest mass of an electron (me = 9.11 x 10-31 kg), and
charge of an electron proton (e = 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs). There are
several other constants, but these pertain to the following anthropic
coincidences (highly improbable conditions required for life):
-
If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower)—even just one part in 10^50 (.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001)—then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both options of which would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form. This cannot be reasonably explained by pure chance.
-
If the strong nuclear force constant were higher than its value (15) by only 2%, there would be no hydrogen in the universe (and therefore no nuclear fuel or water—this would have prohibited life). If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force constant had been 2% lower than its value then no element heavier than hydrogen could have emerged in the universe (helium, carbon, etc). This would have been equally detrimental to the development of life. This “anthropic coincidence” also seems to lie beyond the boundaries of pure chance.
-
If the gravitational constant, electromagnetism, or the “proton mass relative to the electron mass” varied from their values by only a tiny fraction (higher or lower), then all stars would be either blue giants or red dwarfs. These kinds of stars would not emit the proper kind of heat and light for a long enough period to allow for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms. Again, these “anthropic coincidences” are beyond pure chance occurrence.
-
If the weak force constant had been slightly smaller or larger than its value, then supernovae explosions would never have occurred. If these explosions had not occurred, there would be no carbon, iron, or earth-like planets.
-
Fred Hoyle and William Fowler discovered the exceedingly high improbability of oxygen, carbon, helium, and beryllium having the precise values to allow for both carbon abundance and carbon bonding (necessary for life). This “anthropic coincidence” was so striking that it caused Hoyle to abandon his previous atheism and declare:
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry
and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about
in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
The
odds against all five of the anthropic coincidences happening
randomly is exceedingly and almost unimaginably improbable. Most
reasonable and responsible individuals would not attribute this to
random occurrence (because the odds are so overwhelmingly against
it), and so, they look for another explanation which is more
reasonable and responsible.
For
this reason, almost no respectable physicist (including Stephen
Hawking), believes that these anthropic coincidences can be explained
by pure chance. In view of the fact that no natural explanation has
been found for them, most physicists have made recourse to one of two
trans-universal explanations:
-
A multiverse (a naturalistic explanation) and
-
A super intellectual Creator (a supernatural explanation).
Is
the naturalistic explanation more reasonable and responsible? Not
necessarily because the other universes (and the multiverse itself)
are in principle unobservable. Furthermore, it violates the principle
of parsimony (Ockham’s Razor)—the explanation with the least
number of assumptions, conditions, and requirements is to be
preferred. As physicist Paul Davies notes:
"Another weakness of the anthropic argument is that it seems the
very antithesis of Ockham’s razor, according to which the most
plausible of a possible set of explanations is that which contains
the simplest ideas and least number of assumptions. To invoke an
infinity of other universes just to explain one is surely carrying
excess baggage to cosmic extremes...It is hard to see how such a
purely theoretical construct can ever be used as an explanation, in
the scientific sense, of a feature of nature. Of course, one might
find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in
an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than
observation."8
In
addition, one more problem is that all known multiverse theories have
significant fine-tuning requirements. Linde’s chaotic inflationary
multiverse cannot randomly cough out bubble universes because they
would collide and make both universes inhospitable to life; the
bubble universes must be spaced out in a slow roll which requires
considerable fine-tuning in the multiverses initial parameters.9
Similarly, Susskind’s String Theory landscape requires considerable
meta-level fine-tuning to explain its “anthropic"
tendencies.10
Conclusions
Given
these problems, is the multiverse a more reasonable and responsible
explanation of our universe’s anthropic coincidences? Many
physicists believe that it is not, not only because of the above
three problems, but also because of the likelihood of a Creator. When
the evidence for a beginning is combined with the exceedingly high
improbability of the above anthropic coincidences, a super intellect
seems to be the best explanation because it avoids all the problems
of a hypothetical multiverse. Thus, it is both reasonable and
responsible to believe on the basis of physics, that there is a very
powerful and intelligent being that caused our universe to exist as a
whole. While contemporary physics does not prove the fullness of God,
it certainly points to him.
Notes:
-
See Borde and Vilenkin 1994 ↩
-
Guth 1999 pg. 1. ↩
-
Guth 1999 pg. 1. ↩
-
Vilenkin 2006 p. 173., ↩
-
Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin 2003 p. 3 ↩
-
Vilenkin 2006 p.175. ↩
-
Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin 2003 p. 4. ↩
-
Davies 1983, pp. 173-174. ↩
-
See Alabidi and Lyth 2006. ↩
-
See Gordon 2010 pp. 100-102. ↩
Fr.
Robert Spitzer, PhD is a Catholic priest in the Jesuit order, and is
currently the President of the Magis Center of Reason and Faith and
the Spitzer Center. He earned his PhD in philosophy from the Catholic
University of America and from 1998 to 2009 was President of Gonzaga
University. Fr. Spitzer has made multiple media appearances
including: Larry King Live (debating Stephen Hawking, Leonard
Mlodinow, and Deepak Chopra on God and modern physics), the Today
Show (debating on the topic of active euthanasia), The History
Channel in “God and The Universe,” and a multiple part PBS series
“Closer to the Truth." Fr. Spitzer is the author of five books
including New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of
Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Eerdmans, 2010); Ten Universal
Principles: A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues (Ignatius, 2011);
and Healing the Culture: A Commonsense Philosophy of Happiness,
Freedom and the Life Issues (Ignatius, 2011). Follow Fr. Spitzer's
work at the Magis Center of Reason and Faith.