Roy Tsenza – Between Science and God, Chapter Two: Does the Big Bang Prove the Existence of God?

Hello Rabbi,
I saw Roy Tzanze’s article on the Tapuz website in response to the Rabbi’s words in the second notebook – ‘The Cosmological View’
I will quote selected parts of his article, I would love to hear the Rabbi’s response to these things:

…” The first approach to solving the parable (turtles all the way to the bottom) was presented in recent days in the teaching of Rabbi Dr. Michael Avraham, who argued that the series of turtles cannot be infinite, and must end somewhere. There must be solid ground on which the lowest turtle will place its feet. There must be a foundation, even if we do not understand its nature. And how can we understand? After all, all we know are the turtles! Because of this, the foundation must be incomprehensible and beyond the laws of nature that we accept, and it is God.
This is one solution to the problem of the initial cause, but it has two major flaws, which rely on the fact that during the solution we ‘cheat the rules’ and add external factors that we do not know and are not sure of their existence.
Turtles so far
The first failure is reflected in the failure of the original parable of the turtles. This parable, like many others, is intended to convey a certain point to the readers. The author of the parable scoffs at the attempt to attribute the first cause to natural processes that we have long known. He refers to that first cause as a necessity, implying that it must be based on some external factors, not ‘turtles’ or physical laws familiar to us.
But what if there is no primary cause?
This question seems to go against our intuition about the world around us. Yet, many proven scientific theories go against our established way of thinking. Seemingly random processes of evolution create order and logic. Quantum-sized objects (and recently, evidence is beginning to emerge that even larger objects) can be present at two points in space at the same time. The world, it turns out, is more complex and wonderful than we imagine.
So why shouldn’t it also be eternal?
This is cheating, of course. We give an answer to an example that deviates from the original rules. But it is no different from the previous solution by which we ‘proved’ the existence of God. In order to assume the existence of God as the creator of something out of nothing, we are forced to invent circumstances and physical forces that we do not know and do not understand. There is nothing wrong with this – the science of physics has discovered new such forces almost every decade in the last century, and we are learning to understand them and use them to our advantage. But if we allow ourselves to ‘cheat the parable’ and solve it by adding a factor that bypasses all the forces of nature, then logically we can equally accept another ‘symmetry-breaking’ explanation, according to which the universe is eternal. After all, if we only know turtles on top of turtles, how can we know that they really have an end or a beginning?
This answer is supported by some physicists. Recently, a new model of the Big Bang has been proposed, according to which there are a huge number – perhaps infinite – of universes, each of which expands for tens of billions of years, and then begins to contract with excruciating slowness – until it reaches a singularity, a cosmic egg containing all the energy and mass of an entire universe. Sound familiar? This point will expand again in a gigantic explosion and create the universe in which we live, fight and love. Our universe is also expanding, but one day it will reach a point where the elastic sheet will stretch to its limit – and then it will begin to contract back, to a new singularity that will also explode in turn. A world without end, without beginning.
You can relax: our universe won’t start to contract for another few tens of billions of years. A vast amount of time, when all the suns will be extinguished and entropy will rule the black space. Humans will be extinct long before then.
This, then, is the eternal expanding and contracting universe. But here we can ask again: Who created this universe? This question, as we have already explained, is irrelevant because the very formulation implies that there is a creator, and there is no reason to assume so. In fact, if we decide that logically it is possible that there is a creator, then we must decide that by the same logic it is possible that the universe is eternal, and was not created by anyone.
God of the Gaps
The second fallacy is our reliance on ignorance – a lack of knowledge – to determine the existence and identity of God. Even if there must be a basis for the turtles (and this is a claim that still requires proof), this still does not prove that that basis is an omnipotent, or even semi-omnipotent or quarter-omnipotent God. Logicians give a name to this type of logical fallacy , in which we take the unknown and call it ‘God’. It is the God of the Gaps .
This term was coined in the 19th century by the evangelical Christian lecturer Henry Drummond, who rebuked believers who exploited every point of uncertainty and ignorance in the scientific explanation of the world to claim that God was present there. We are not sure how the world came into being? God made it. We are not sure why one person is sick and another remains healthy? God did it. Drummond called on Christians to accept all of nature as one great God, “…the God of evolution, who is infinitely greater than the old theological God, that hasty wonder-worker.”
Even if we choose to accept the existence of some God based on our lack of knowledge, the idea of ​​God as the basis for all physical phenomena and laws does not answer the constant question about the nature of God. To the extent that Christian, Muslim, and Jewish religious leaders choose to establish that the basis for turtles, the same primary cause of all primary causes, is the good and benevolent God known to us from the Bible, any foolish fool can declare that the devil created the entire world (as the Yazidi religious leaders do), a cosmic cow that licked the universe into its current form (as the Norse believe), or that behind the Big Bang stands the Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the world with its eternal tentacles (as the Pastafarians believe). Of course, everyone is wrong: Plop-El is the one who created the world (and you are invited to join his small but high-quality church on Facebook). Still, it is easy to see how the logical argument for the existence of Plop-El is taken here and removed from all context and logic.
Finding God
From all of the above, we learn that there is no good reason to attribute the Big Bang to divine initiative.” Etc.