The Science of the Resurrection

This document may change with further debate.
If you would like to comment on these issues, then click on the Feedback button. Don't forget to mention the page you are commenting on.

Some may object to the idea of the resurrection on the basis of scientific reasons. "How can God construct a body so quickly?" they may ask. "And how can we know that they are who they claim to be?"

You cannot argue that it is not possible for a body to be constructed to house a mind. For there you are - a body which houses a mind that asks the question. So the question is not if it can happen. The question is how it can happen. Where does the matter and energy come from? What forces determine where the matter goes?

As for where the matter and energy comes from, perhaps it might be possible that it is created from nothing. But if not, then the great earthquake that is to come (Revelation_16:18-21) would certainly contain enough energy and stir up enough matter for the resurrection. So the question is not whether there is enough matter and energy to construct the resurrection. The question is how can matter be so precisely directed by what seems to be random forces.

This goes to the heart of the physics of this day. Science at this time believes that matter at the atomic scale acts like a wave in some circumstances with its associated constructive and destructive interference patterns. Quantum mechanics is the mathematical formulation of the wave nature of matter. It is believed that the peaks and valley of the wave represents places where the particle will be most probably found and less probably found. And science can only speak in terms of how probable things are.

This is because in the process of measuring any system of particles, we disturb that system in ways that can't be exactly predicted. When studying the average motion of large quantities of atoms, the amount of energy required to measure that system is only a very small portion of the energy in that system, and so we can be more sure that we have not disturbed the motion that we are measuring to any considerable extent. But when we measure systems with only a few subatomic particles, the energy required in order to measure that system can be a large portion of the energy in that system. So we can't be as sure of the motion after we measure it, for we have more greatly interfered with that system in the process of measuring it.

And this is important because the equations that describe the motion of a particle can predict exactly where a particle will go if you know exactly where it has been. But you can't get exact predictions of future motion if you don't have exact measurements to start with. And so we are stuck with dealing only with probabilities when we discuss the predictability of the universe at its most basic level.

All this is formulated in Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. This principle says that it is impossible to exactly measure both the position of a particle and its motion. And both these quantities are required to determine the particles future development. It does not deny that the particle has an exact position or an exact direction of motion. But it says that the more exactly you measure one, then the less exact must be your measurement of the other.

So there is some speculation on whether the real nature of the universe is at least theoretically exact or whether it is only probable at its very core. If the true nature of reality must obey the probabilities of quantum mechanics, then we can say that the possibility of the resurrection is an astronomical improbability - though not entirely impossible. But if the true nature of reality is deterministic, that is to say at least theoretically exact, then there is only one destiny that can and will come about. And all the particle involved will all fall into place according to exact equations that determine its outcome.

As to whether the universe is probable at its core, it should be noted that probabilities are only used to describe the average behavior of objects whose motion we cannot yet exactly predict. Thus, probabilities are exclusively used to compensate for our ignorance of the exact equations of motion. And once the exact equations of motion are determined, we no longer insist that the motion is truly random.

Consider the toss of the dice. The outcome of throwing dice has a certain probability associated with each possibility. Yet, if we knew exactly the position and velocity of the dice just before it hit the table, then we could run a computer simulation that would exactly predict the outcome. So just because it has a probabilistic nature to it does not mean that it is not deterministic.

My argument, though, is that you cannot logically prove that something is not deterministic. For this would be to say that there is no basis in reality for a particular event. Furthermore, there is no place in logic for the concept of "no proof". You cannot show that one fact does not prove another fact. You can show that one fact proves that another is true, or you can prove that one fact proves that another is false. Or, you might prove that it is false to state that any arbitrary fact will prove that the result is true. Yet this logically implies that every arbitrary fact proves that the result is false (See eq41). So if there is really no fact that can deterministically cause a particular result, then every fact must deterministically prove that you will not get that result.

But as far as determinism goes, we will never be able to confirm by experiment that the world is deterministic. For, as I mentioned earlier, you interfere with the result you are trying to measure when you go through the process of measuring it. So you can never get an exact measure of the world in order to plug into the equations.

You cannot prove that the world is probabilistic, and you cannot observe that it is deterministic. You must accept on faith that the world is governed by destiny. For this is the only thing consistent with logic.