Status
Not open for further replies.

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
As a physiscist, I think that the strongest rational argument for God's existence is the mathematical representability of the natural laws. Science has proved that natural phenomena can be predicted through some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics.

The fact that through a system of mathematical equations it is possible to predict sistematically the results of all mechanical, chemical, electromagnetic, optical and thermal processes makes it unreasonable to suppose that nature hasn't an intrinsic mathematical, and therefore rational, structure. There is in fact no reason to expect that a non-mathematically structured universe could be sistematically described by a system of mathematical equations. Actually the first scientists (Galileo and Newton) who began to use mathematical equations to express the natural laws, were christians and they justified their choice because they believed that the universe was a creation of an intelligent God. Their intuition has certainly revealed one of the most fruitful intuitions in history and all scientists now accept the idea that the natural laws can be expressed through matemathical equations, even if some of them (atheists and agnostics) seem not to understand the theological implications of this fact.

I would like to point out that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.

The insurmountable problem for atheists is to explain the existence of the laws of physics and their intrinsic conceptual and mathematical nature.

Usually atheists refer to the natural laws as "patterns or regularities" (or equivalent expressions) but these are only vague and empty rethoric figures, without any real meaning. The point is that all modern physics, and in particular quantum mechanics, consists of abstract mathematical models without any concrete representations.

In conclusion, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of an intelliogent and conscious God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
 

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
As a physiscist, I think that the strongest rational argument for God's existence is the mathematical representability of the natural laws. Science has proved that natural phenomena can be predicted through some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics.

The fact that through a system of mathematical equations it is possible to predict sistematically the results of all mechanical, chemical, electromagnetic, optical and thermal processes makes it unreasonable to suppose that nature hasn't an intrinsic mathematical, and therefore rational, structure. There is in fact no reason to expect that a non-mathematically structured universe could be sistematically described by a system of mathematical equations. Actually the first scientists (Galileo and Newton) who began to use mathematical equations to express the natural laws, were christians and they justified their choice because they believed that the universe was a creation of an intelligent God. Their intuition has certainly revealed one of the most fruitful intuitions in history and all scientists now accept the idea that the natural laws can be expressed through matemathical equations, even if some of them (atheists and agnostics) seem not to understand the theological implications of this fact.

I would like to point out that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.

The insurmountable problem for atheists is to explain the existence of the laws of physics and their intrinsic conceptual and mathematical nature.

Usually atheists refer to the natural laws as "patterns or regularities" (or equivalent expressions) but these are only vague and empty rethoric figures, without any real meaning. The point is that all modern physics, and in particular quantum mechanics, consists of abstract mathematical models without any concrete representations.
Yet no ontological claim for them need be made one way or the other for them to possess instrumentality.

In conclusion, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of an intelliogent and conscious God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
In other words, Mathematical Realism (an unfalsifiable proposition) proves the existence of God (another unfalsifiable proposition.)
 
Upvote 0

caerlerion

Active Member
Jun 28, 2019
78
88
No
✟21,102.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The insurmountable problem for atheists is to explain the existence of the laws of physics and their intrinsic conceptual and mathematical nature.
This is just the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

"We don't have a complete understanding of X, therefore it can only be explained as a work of God."
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
That everything happens to be “just so,” in a way that enables the universe to hang together, provides an intuition of God’s existence, but only for those with an ear tuned to hear it.

For the cloth eared, a shrug of the shoulders will do.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As a physiscist, I think that the strongest rational argument for God's existence is the mathematical representability of the natural laws. Science has proved that natural phenomena can be predicted through some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics.

The fact that through a system of mathematical equations it is possible to predict sistematically the results of all mechanical, chemical, electromagnetic, optical and thermal processes makes it unreasonable to suppose that nature hasn't an intrinsic mathematical, and therefore rational, structure. There is in fact no reason to expect that a non-mathematically structured universe could be sistematically described by a system of mathematical equations. Actually the first scientists (Galileo and Newton) who began to use mathematical equations to express the natural laws, were christians and they justified their choice because they believed that the universe was a creation of an intelligent God. Their intuition has certainly revealed one of the most fruitful intuitions in history and all scientists now accept the idea that the natural laws can be expressed through matemathical equations, even if some of them (atheists and agnostics) seem not to understand the theological implications of this fact.

I would like to point out that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.

The insurmountable problem for atheists is to explain the existence of the laws of physics and their intrinsic conceptual and mathematical nature.

Usually atheists refer to the natural laws as "patterns or regularities" (or equivalent expressions) but these are only vague and empty rethoric figures, without any real meaning. The point is that all modern physics, and in particular quantum mechanics, consists of abstract mathematical models without any concrete representations.

In conclusion, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of an intelliogent and conscious God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
Without discussing any other aspects, even just accepting the premise, I think the right word in the last paragraph where "imply" is written would best be "suggests the possibility". Only suggestive, so that one might investigate. Or seek. (note that the thing that Romans chapter 1 verse refers to on this topic is actually a very subtle thing by modern standards (noisy modern life), requiring meditation or a very subtle perception modern people don't usually take the time for)

I don't think it's possible to simply prove God exists with either merely reasoning alone (though reasoning can help eliminate some misconceptions of course) nor with testable evidence of the kind that anyone, even a hostile skeptic, could merely test and observe, like one could test the existence of a gold brick by going to the said location and observing it.

God is not an inert object of course, and that's the rub actually -- He won't necessarily allow people to find Him unless they meet His requirements, such as this one which is explicit in scripture:

"God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 29:23; Matthew 23:12; Luke 1:52; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5

One of the conditions of "with all of your heart" in this promise:

Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.

is how open hearted it really is to seek that way -- it's the opposite of arrogant, and it's trusting in a way, a leap of faith, already.

These are explicit requirements He Himself has stated to us, after all.

How could it then ever be possible to merely prove He exists to someone not disposed to seek Him? It's relational instead. He wants us to turn to Him. Or to return to Him, as it were.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
... the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of an intelliogent and conscious God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
"God" as "the" cause is only one of many speculations in regards to observed evidences on the physical plane of existence.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As a physiscist, I think that the strongest rational argument for God's existence is the mathematical representability of the natural laws. Science has proved that natural phenomena can be predicted through some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics.

The fact that through a system of mathematical equations it is possible to predict sistematically the results of all mechanical, chemical, electromagnetic, optical and thermal processes makes it unreasonable to suppose that nature hasn't an intrinsic mathematical, and therefore rational, structure. There is in fact no reason to expect that a non-mathematically structured universe could be sistematically described by a system of mathematical equations. Actually the first scientists (Galileo and Newton) who began to use mathematical equations to express the natural laws, were christians and they justified their choice because they believed that the universe was a creation of an intelligent God. Their intuition has certainly revealed one of the most fruitful intuitions in history and all scientists now accept the idea that the natural laws can be expressed through matemathical equations, even if some of them (atheists and agnostics) seem not to understand the theological implications of this fact.

I would like to point out that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.

The insurmountable problem for atheists is to explain the existence of the laws of physics and their intrinsic conceptual and mathematical nature.

Usually atheists refer to the natural laws as "patterns or regularities" (or equivalent expressions) but these are only vague and empty rethoric figures, without any real meaning. The point is that all modern physics, and in particular quantum mechanics, consists of abstract mathematical models without any concrete representations.

In conclusion, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of an intelliogent and conscious God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
Welcome to CF! Glad to see you here.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Without discussing any other aspects, even just accepting the premise, I think the right word in the last paragraph where "imply" is written would best be "suggests the possibility". Only suggestive, so that one might investigate. Or seek. (note that the thing that Romans chapter 1 verse refers to on this topic is actually a very subtle thing by modern standards (noisy modern life), requiring meditation or a very subtle perception modern people don't usually take the time for)

I don't think it's possible to simply prove God exists with either merely reasoning alone (though reasoning can help eliminate some misconceptions of course) nor with testable evidence of the kind that anyone, even a hostile skeptic, could merely test and observe, like one could test the existence of a gold brick by going to the said location and observing it.

God is not an inert object of course, and that's the rub actually -- He won't necessarily allow people to find Him unless they meet His requirements, such as this one which is explicit in scripture:

"God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 29:23; Matthew 23:12; Luke 1:52; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5

One of the conditions of "with all of your heart" in this promise:

Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.

is how open hearted it really is to seek that way -- it's the opposite of arrogant, and it's trusting in a way, a leap of faith, already.

These are explicit requirements He Himself has stated to us, after all.

How could it then ever be possible to merely prove He exists to someone not disposed to seek Him? It's relational instead. He wants us to turn to Him. Or to return to Him, as it were.
Attempts to "prove" God with science or logic or by any other such means likely to convince a skeptic are generally always politically motivated. "You must believe in my God*, whether you like it or not."

*And by extension, acquiesce to the social or moral order which my religion desires to impose.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Attempts to "prove" God with science or logic or by any other such means likely to convince a skeptic are generally always politically motivated. "You must believe in my God*, whether you like it or not."

*And by extension, acquiesce to the social or moral order which my religion desires to impose.
That can happen, yes, and often. I've noticed too that often such a 'social or moral order' turns out not to be what is even in the scriptural text in many cases, but can be a painted-on modern cultural thing imagined onto the text of the scripture, and incompatible with key parts of the scripture. So, the caution is not to get a 2nd hand view of what Christ says of course, but to read His clear yet often subtle and deep wordings for oneself.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,493
✟236,358.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
That everything happens to be “just so,” in a way that enables the universe to hang together, provides an intuition of God’s existence, but only for those with an ear tuned to hear it.

For the cloth eared, a shrug of the shoulders will do.
That seems a little harsh. The existence of the universe, coupled with the laws that seem to govern it, seen from the perspective of human experience are suggestive of a creator. It takes minimal "tuning of the ears" to see that. However, if subsequent investigation, analysis and contemplation lead to the conclusion that such a creator is uncertain it is unreasonable to describe the holder of such a view as cloth-eared.

I would only shrug my shoulders if you chose to dismiss this point.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,955
✟174,620.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
That seems a little harsh. The existence of the universe, coupled with the laws that seem to govern it, seen from the perspective of human experience are suggestive of a creator.
.. or suggestive of a human observer creating the meanings of the words constituting that model of 'what exists'.

Our fundamental laws 'govern' nothing. They are derived from observations. They are our laws .. and not something which exists independently from us, (the latter of which would be an untestable belief).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,955
✟174,620.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Nature has never heard of math.
Math is a human invention.

Mule Train said:
Nature is a balance of asymmetric motion.
That's your model (and meaning) of 'Nature' then.
Begs the question of: what happened to the 'symmetric motion' bit though?
 
Upvote 0

Mule Train

Member
Supporter
Aug 1, 2019
15
1
72
Haymaker Town, VA
✟46,364.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
There are two physical pillars. Only two in all creation. Both are symmetrical. But the interaction of the two, is asymmetrical.

Only man, would watch the universe, match a math equation, and declare the laws which make it work.

Nature has no life or intellect, but joins with all creation to laugh at man.

Silly silly man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gregory95
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,493
✟236,358.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
.. or suggestive of a human observer creating the meanings of the words constituting that model of 'what exists'.
Your abuse of lexically valuable terms descends into a morass of nonsense when you concatenate those terms in an attempt to suggest something profoundly meaningful. Or, in the more concise and robust words I favour: balderdash.

.Our fundamental laws 'govern' nothing..
Yes, that would be why a said this:

the laws that seem to govern it

.Our fundamental laws 'govern' nothing. They are derived from observations. .
Which is why when we use those observations effectively, to fashion a model, we find a good agreement between the model, the laws that define it, and new observations.

They are our laws .. and not something which exists independently from us
That would be a belief.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,955
✟174,620.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
That everything happens to be “just so,” in a way that enables the universe to hang together, provides an intuition of God’s existence, but only for those with an ear tuned to hear it.
Questions like: 'Why do the parameters of our universe take on the values they do?' or 'Why is there gravity?' are questions that don't require a scientific explanation .. we don't explain 'why' in objective models ... we just propose them and test them. 'God's existence' just never even comes up ..
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,955
✟174,620.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
There are two physical pillars. Only two in all creation. Both are symmetrical. But the interaction of the two, is asymmetrical.

Only man, would watch the universe, match a math equation, and declare the laws which make it work.

Nature has no life or intellect, but joins with all creation to laugh at man.

Silly silly man.
We are part of nature .. laughing with derision is what a human does .. therefore 'nature' must be human.
How did that happen?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,955
✟174,620.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Your abuse of lexically valuable terms descends into a morass of nonsense when you concatenate those terms in an attempt to suggest something profoundly meaningful. Or, in the more concise and robust words I favour: balderdash.
You seem to have problems when it comes to understanding where the meanings in our words comes from. Are you aware of semantics?

'Exists' is a human word which acquired its meaning somehow .. What is your explanation?

Ophiolite said:
Yes, that would be why a said this:
Ok .. we're getting somewhere then.

Ophiolite said:
Which is why when we use those observations effectively, to fashion a model, we find a good agreement between the model, the laws that define it, and new observations.
The laws are also human invented models (this is easily demonstrable). The definitions (or models) can be updated as well when new observations become available. (ie: I think we might be in overall agreement here?)

Ophiolite said:
That would be a belief.
Objectively prove it, then!
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Questions like: 'Why do the parameters of our universe take on the values they do?' or 'Why is there gravity?' are questions that don't require a scientific explanation .. we don't explain 'why' in objective models ... we just propose them and test them. 'God's existence' just never even comes up ..

We are not talking about whether or not something has or needs a scientific explanation.

I cannot remember which physicist it was who declared himself to have been "amazed" by the principle of least action, when he first of it. But it is the kind of intuition, which results in that kind of amazement, that we are talking about.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
.. or suggestive of a human observer creating the meanings of the words constituting that model of 'what exists'.

Our fundamental laws 'govern' nothing. They are derived from observations. They are our laws .. and not something which exists independently from us, (the latter of which would be an untestable belief).
We see consistent and reliable regularity in nature and we attempt to discover the rules of what we are seeing in nature, its "laws", trying to always get closer to the actual rules, which already exist before our observations, independently of us.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.