'God of gaps': singularity and the divine

Listen to article

"But God who creates out of nothing, who Almightily takes from 'nothing' and says, 'Be', lovingly adjoins, 'Be something even in apposition to me'. Marvelous love, even His omnipotence is under the sway of love!"— Søren Kierkegaard (181355)

At the threshold of all scientific discovery lies an abyss of uncertainty — deep, dark, and echoing with questions no instrument can measure, no equation can tame. As one ventures further into the realms of modern cosmology, quantum theory, and even life sciences, the ultimate origin of things seems not only hidden, but perhaps fundamentally veiled. Metaphysics, which deals with first principles, remains just as empty of answers on questions regarding being, knowing, identity, time and space, as it was centuries ago.

The difference is that all the gaps that believing folks used to fill with God are now-a-days being confronted by the Western scientific community with a predisposition that any theory minus God will be entertained, and the God-option will not be entertained.

For instance, in explaining the origin of the universe, the concept of a "singularity" — a point of infinite density and near zero space, from which all existence burst forth — is now commonplace in scientific discourse. Even when it is impossible to explain wherefrom would come the force to push all matter into such a tiny originating place, what from was the singularity birthed?

The prevailing answer, even among the most disciplined minds in the West, is often startlingly abstract: "Nothing." How can a rational intellect conclude that literally everything, came out of nothing?

Here, we encounter a paradox not of faith, but of logic. The scientific mind, which demands causality for every effect, appears to suspend this demand at the very brink of the cosmos. It grants, as an exception, that the singularity needs no cause, no origin. Yet, that same mind dismisses the idea of a monkey spontaneously materialising before us from the void. Why? Because of our profound awareness — gained from science — of the complexity within a monkey, encoded in its DNA, structured in its neurology, orchestrated in its biology. Such order cannot come from chaos. And yet, the singularity, infinitely more complex, is allowed to arise from nothing?

The Quran reminds us that the universe is much more complex than the complexities we find close to us: "Surely the creation of the heavens and the earth is greater than the creation of mankind; but most of mankind know not." Al Ghaffir 40:57

This contradiction reveals a profound philosophical bias. The scientific method — precise, skeptical, grounded in observation — loses its footing when dealing with the unobservable. It begins to indulge in what can only be described as imaginative metaphysics, cloaked in mathematical abstractions. Suddenly, chaos can birth the whole of the cosmos, and spontaneity is crowned with creative power.

We must ask: Is this not a form of philosophical escapism? A metaphysical leap dressed in scientific robes?

Because in retrospect singularity from 'nothing' is not a mere vacuum; it's a loaded term, full of potentiality, energy and unspoken laws and blueprints.

Many thinkers today lean heavily toward models that avoid the need for a Creator — not out of evidence, but out of philosophical inclination. Thus, arise many contesting theories, like parallel universes, infinite regressions or quantum vacuums. These are not observations but conjectures, born not from the telescope or microscope, but simply from an unwillingness to accept the existence of a superintelligence that has made the universe from outside.

Whether the universe emerged from a singularity, a quantum field, or a multiverse, we still confront the same mystery: Why is there something rather than nothing? The laws of physics may describe the how, but they never reach the why. And where physics runs out, philosophy begins.

Herein lies the problem. When faced with the unknown, science sometimes becomes theology in disguise — a theology without a god, but no less absolutely dogmatic in faithfulness.

The scientist seeks proof, but sadly, where there is none, theory becomes faith. This is evident in the theories of Stephen Hawking, who proposed the "no-boundary" model of the universe using imaginary time — a mathematical construct meant to remove the singularity and with it, the need for a beginning. By bending time through complex numbers, Hawking envisioned a cosmos without a starting point, finite but unbounded, much like the surface of a sphere. It is a beautiful idea, compelling and elegant. But it is also unproven. It is a theory not just of physics, but of desire — a desire for a self-contained universe, needing nothing beyond itself.

It is a philosophical statement as much as a scientific one.

So, we return to the "God of the Gaps"— often derided as a relic of pre-scientific thought. But perhaps this label is unjust. The true "God of the Gaps" is not invoked to plug ignorance with superstition, but to acknowledge the source of order, beauty, and consciousness. Not a temporary solution, but the grounding of all being. A God not of ignorance, but of origin.

Life, itself a mystery science, has yet to penetrate fully. The emergence of consciousness, purpose, aesthetics and morality - all these resist reduction to atoms and energy. If we admit the existence of non-material realities, such as thought and love, why not also a transcendent thought-centre? A superintelligence, a Creator who not only started the process but sustains it? "Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is." Baqarah, 2:117

Occam's Razor also demands the abandonment of complexity; it suggests that a single, sufficient cause is better than an endless regress of inadequate ones. And what better candidate for a first cause than an uncaused, necessary Being, eternal and conscious?

Science is indeed marvelous — mesmerising in its scope, elegant in its formulations. It has given us great power and insight. But it is only one lens among many. The human mind encompasses more: intuition, imagination, morality, faith. We are not merely observers — we are meaning-makers and our actions bring change and add in the reality we live in. We are also meaning-seekers, and in every heart lies the question of ultimate meaning; what is the truth behind all truths?

In the end, the choice we have to make is not between science and non-science, but between believing one unknown or the other. It's not whether science can find God - but whether human reason can forsake the rationality of His existence forever.