A physicist named Gerald Schroeder apparently believed that he could provide "scientific proof" that God exists — despite that science can never "prove" anything with certainty like mathematics or logic can, and can merely "show" or "demonstrate" — in five minutes, according to his Youtube video on the subject. Unsurprisingly, his five-minute "proof" is full of holes. One cannot infer that God exists merely because the laws of nature exist, contrary to what Schroeder claimed.
1. Since time is part of the universe, and nothing can predate time, the laws of nature do not predate the universe as Schroeder claimed.
Schroeder claimed (at 2:25) that "the Bible got it right" because "There was a beginning to the universe." In this respect he is correct: the Bible did get at least one thing right in a literal reading of it. However, he neglected to mention that the Bible incorrectly described almost every other detail about the beginning of the universe: namely, how long ago it happened, how long it took for the various kinds of life to form, through what processes the various kinds of life formed, whether or not there was a "firmament" above the Earth, whether stars existed before the Earth did, et cetera. It is commonly accepted based on the overwhelming majority of evidence that a literal reading of the Bible gives inaccurate answers to these questions.
The video displayed (at 0:58) a diagram showing the history and expansion of the universe, set against a black background:
Schroeder said (at 2:30) that "the black in the diagram is nothing. It's not a vacuum, vacuums are within that diagram ... vacuums are empty space, and space is something. The black of the paper around the diagram is nothing." In other words, there is not anything outside of the universe. Considering that the Christian god is said to exist outside of the physical universe, Schroeder's assertion taken on its face is an argument against theism and for metaphysical naturalism: nothing exists except for the natural, physical universe.
However, Schroeder contradicted his assertion within a minute and a half of saying it, claiming (at 3:59) that "the forces of nature, the laws of nature ... predate the universe." In the diagram, the space behind the bright light at the beginning of the universe is black. In other words, there was nothing before the beginning of the universe. There was not anything at all — not even time, because time is part of the universe and part of Schroeder's "box." This makes sense within the context, since the X-axis of the diagram is time and the bright light occurs at time = 0. The phrase "predate the universe" is then inherently contradictory in context. "Predate" means "exist or occur at a date earlier than (something)," and there is no earlier date than the beginning of the universe.
Schroeder's false assertion that the laws of physics "predate the universe" reflects his earlier comment (at 2:48) that "[h]umans think in a box. A box made of time, space, and matter/energy. By definition, there is not anything which predates the beginning of the universe; anything described as predating the beginning of the universe cannot exist. No human, as clever as they might be, as expansive as they might be, thinks out of that box" because he assumed that there exists something in the black space of the diagram, outside of the universe: time. Since he proceeded to argue that God predates the beginning of the universe, it follows that God is nothing.
The video displayed (at 0:58) a diagram showing the history and expansion of the universe, set against a black background:
Schroeder said (at 2:30) that "the black in the diagram is nothing. It's not a vacuum, vacuums are within that diagram ... vacuums are empty space, and space is something. The black of the paper around the diagram is nothing." In other words, there is not anything outside of the universe. Considering that the Christian god is said to exist outside of the physical universe, Schroeder's assertion taken on its face is an argument against theism and for metaphysical naturalism: nothing exists except for the natural, physical universe.
However, Schroeder contradicted his assertion within a minute and a half of saying it, claiming (at 3:59) that "the forces of nature, the laws of nature ... predate the universe." In the diagram, the space behind the bright light at the beginning of the universe is black. In other words, there was nothing before the beginning of the universe. There was not anything at all — not even time, because time is part of the universe and part of Schroeder's "box." This makes sense within the context, since the X-axis of the diagram is time and the bright light occurs at time = 0. The phrase "predate the universe" is then inherently contradictory in context. "Predate" means "exist or occur at a date earlier than (something)," and there is no earlier date than the beginning of the universe.
Schroeder's false assertion that the laws of physics "predate the universe" reflects his earlier comment (at 2:48) that "[h]umans think in a box. A box made of time, space, and matter/energy. By definition, there is not anything which predates the beginning of the universe; anything described as predating the beginning of the universe cannot exist. No human, as clever as they might be, as expansive as they might be, thinks out of that box" because he assumed that there exists something in the black space of the diagram, outside of the universe: time. Since he proceeded to argue that God predates the beginning of the universe, it follows that God is nothing.
2. Under no viable interpretation of the laws of nature do those laws 'determine the physical' as Schroeder claimed, because the laws of physics are based on what physically happens.
Compounding his contradiction, Schroeder claimed (at 3:59) that "the laws of nature ... aren't physical, they act on the physical." There are three major interpretations of what "the laws of nature" are: regularity theory, nomic necessity theory, and causal dispositions theory. [1]Note 1. Craig, Reasonable Faith pp. 262-263. Under none of them is Schroeder correct. The first two imply that "the laws of nature" refers to a set of constant patterns followed by physical things. Under regularity theory, "the laws of nature" are whatever occurs in nature; under nomic necessity theory, "the laws of nature" are universal generalizations about what can and cannot happen. In both cases, "the laws of nature" are contingent upon the physical entities to which they refer. Consequently, they do not "act on the physical" in the sense that they determine the physical; the physical determines and thus "acts on" them. Causal dispositions theory assumes that each entity has an essence including metaphysically necessary dispositions to causally interact in certain ways, and that "the laws of nature" are the set of these dispositions. Even ignoring the flaws of essentialism, a mere collection of individual entities' dispositions does not "act on the physical" but emerges from physical entities' individual actions.
Schroeder said (at 4:08) that "now we have a set of forces ... that are not physical, that are able to act on the physical, they create the physical from absolute nothing, and they predate the universe which means they predate our understanding of time." As previously shown, the laws of nature can only be described as "not physical" because they are patterns within "the physical." For the same reason, the laws of nature do not "act" in the sense of "cause." Also, the claim that anything "predates the universe" is self-refuting because "the universe" includes all of time and thus anything that predates anything else would be, by definition, within the universe.
Immediately after his inaccurate description of the forces of nature, Schroeder claimed (at 4:24) that he established an argument for Christian theism: "Put that together and it sounds very familiar. If you haven't noticed it, that's the Biblical definition of God." To visually demonstrate his point, he switches out the phrase "Set of Forces" with "Biblical God" on the diagram in the video. Assuming that he is correct despite that he does not reference a single Bible verse or Christian theological text, the following are implications of his argument:
Schroeder said (at 4:08) that "now we have a set of forces ... that are not physical, that are able to act on the physical, they create the physical from absolute nothing, and they predate the universe which means they predate our understanding of time." As previously shown, the laws of nature can only be described as "not physical" because they are patterns within "the physical." For the same reason, the laws of nature do not "act" in the sense of "cause." Also, the claim that anything "predates the universe" is self-refuting because "the universe" includes all of time and thus anything that predates anything else would be, by definition, within the universe.
Immediately after his inaccurate description of the forces of nature, Schroeder claimed (at 4:24) that he established an argument for Christian theism: "Put that together and it sounds very familiar. If you haven't noticed it, that's the Biblical definition of God." To visually demonstrate his point, he switches out the phrase "Set of Forces" with "Biblical God" on the diagram in the video. Assuming that he is correct despite that he does not reference a single Bible verse or Christian theological text, the following are implications of his argument:
- God is not physical because He is a set of patterns within the physical, and is contingent upon the physical for His existence.
- God cannot act on anything, for the same reason that He is not physical: he is a consequence of the physical.
- God's definition contradicts itself by including the phrase "predates the universe."
3. One cannot call the laws of nature the Christian god because (a) the Christian god has volition and those laws do not, and (b) by performing miracles, the Christian god violates the laws of nature.
Schroeder defined God as synonymous with the laws of nature. If this is true, then his "God" is fundamentally different from the Biblical god, who is famous for his miracles — instances wherein it violates the laws of nature. The Biblical god is defined as being able to act contrary to the laws of nature, while the God of Schroeder's argument is defined as being the laws of nature themselves. God cannot be simultaneously "the laws of nature" and "able to violate the laws of nature." If the two were the same, then every one of God's miracles as recorded in the Bible would require him to negate himself.
Given that Schroeder sought to establish that the laws of nature are synonymous with God, he failed to establish that the laws of nature are a unified sentient entity with emotions and volition, as the Biblical god is. As Youtube user Jonathan Schattke pointed out in a comment on the video, "[t]he most important attribute of God is left out: volition. Without volition, you don't have a God, you just have forces, natural laws." Schroeder's argument not only fails to establish God's volition but the argument actually refutes it. Since the laws of nature are patterns followed by physical objects, they cannot be described as possessing volition at all.
The argument that Schroeder attempted to make follows the form "X fits the definition of Y; therefore the existence of X entails the existence of Y" such that X is the laws of nature and Y is the Biblical god. However, the existence of distinct differences between the Biblical god and the laws of nature — namely, that the Biblical god violates the laws of nature and that the laws of nature lack volition — negates his premise. For this reason and the others that have been described, Schroeder's argument falls flat.
Given that Schroeder sought to establish that the laws of nature are synonymous with God, he failed to establish that the laws of nature are a unified sentient entity with emotions and volition, as the Biblical god is. As Youtube user Jonathan Schattke pointed out in a comment on the video, "[t]he most important attribute of God is left out: volition. Without volition, you don't have a God, you just have forces, natural laws." Schroeder's argument not only fails to establish God's volition but the argument actually refutes it. Since the laws of nature are patterns followed by physical objects, they cannot be described as possessing volition at all.
The argument that Schroeder attempted to make follows the form "X fits the definition of Y; therefore the existence of X entails the existence of Y" such that X is the laws of nature and Y is the Biblical god. However, the existence of distinct differences between the Biblical god and the laws of nature — namely, that the Biblical god violates the laws of nature and that the laws of nature lack volition — negates his premise. For this reason and the others that have been described, Schroeder's argument falls flat.