Scientific Argument for God's existence
- Thread starter mmarco
- Start date
- Status
See what you just said is your model.
But the actual notion that the so-called 'actual rules' exist independently of a human mind, is objectively untestable. (If you disagree with this .. then simply state the test that I can do, and I will show you that what you are testing relies wholly on a human mind .. and I predict there will be no objective test you can cite which demonstrates that they exist independently from some human mind).
This is why I say the idea that 'actual rules exist', is a belief, where a belief is: 'Any notion held as being true for any reason'.
The 'consistency and reliable regularity we see' doesn't lead anywhere because it doesn't actually explain anything (there could be an independent (physical) reality that everyone perceives differently, so similarities prove nothing), it cannot be tested (it makes no predictions we can't get without the notion of 'independent of humans'), and worse, it is internally inconsistent (it involves defining a concept as being independent of humans, even though all the words in the definition acquire human dependent (assigned) meanings).
So, we either need a better explanation than you have, or perhaps it belongs in the same category as questions like, for eg: 'Why do the parameters of our universe take on the values they do?' or 'Why is there gravity?', which are questions that simply don't require explanation, because we don't explain our models .. we just propose them, and test them in science.
Upvote
0
Ok (acknowledged).. However, I don't see how one can demonstrate the falsity of some 'Scientific Argument for God's Existence', when one's own beliefs stand in the way of seeing how science actually works(?)
Sometimes 'the intuition' is simply a false expectation attributable to a perception which was originally always based on a belief. We have seen this time and time again in science .. and sometimes it goes on for centuries! Surely a pause for considering the possibility of some undistinguished belief is worthwhile(?)lesliedellow said:
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(I take your apparent declination of my challenge of your coming up with a test which demonstrates your unsupportable assertion that: 'the laws of the universe' somehow exist independently from human thinking, as an indicator of your apparent retreat(?)).
Please stop making unsupported assertions about what supposedly happened in some other thread. Such assertions venture very closely towards being a match-up for the word 'lie'.
You, yourself, have already made totally false assertions elsewhere about there being no technologies for detecting life elsewhere in the universe, (so I wouldn't be casting 'shade' in my direction).
Upvote
0
- Jul 18, 2019
- 664
- 306
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
In the end, I truly believe we will all discover that the believer knew very little more than the skeptic about the will of God. Unfortunately, I fear it will be just enough more to make an eternity's worth of difference. One observation I have made which convinces me strongly of this is the view of the simple. Simple-minded atheists are practically non-existent. Unbelief seems largely to be a malady afflicting either those who are quite intelligent, or those who simply wish to be deemed as such.
Upvote
0
.. especially given that 'the universe' is also a description, (or model), itself.
(Ie: math is simply used in astrophysics, as an efficient way of tracking all known variables in the model of 'the universe' with an extremely high degree of consistency).
There is also nothing in math which produces evidence of its own that suggests 'the universe' runs according to its (very humanly) decided upon axioms.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well there we have it ... Evidence by your own hand that the math equations are a human (mind) invention.mmarco said:
What does Atheism have to do with explaining the existence of the laws of physics? Are you saying Christians can't do that?mmarco said:
I can (see following paragraph).. and I don't hold any particular Atheistic or Christian beliefs in doing so.
'Insurmountable' eh? Its quite simple .. 'existence' is a human English word and whenever we use it, we are passing on what it means. Humans came up with the laws of physics and where any physicist might say: 'the laws of physics exist', the best that physicist can ever mean by that, is the set of last best tested-out laws, because such tests provide the objective results for asserting the existence of them in science's objective reality. End of story.
Nonsense .. How do you explain the measurements of the Hyperfine structure (ie: the 'concrete') without using the Quantum Mechanics (QM's) nuclear magnetic moment? In this case, the structure measurements, (ie: the 'concrete'), even preceded the theory.mmarco said:
Or, what about the role QM's photon plays in explaining the UV catastrophe (ie: the 'concrete')?
So God is a mathematician then? (That'll make some folk happy).mmarco said:
Upvote
0
Actually maths is a much more extended field than physics. You can invent many different mathematical models and equations, which have no physical meaning. The point is that we have found a system of few equations which predict sistematically natural phenomena. We have millions and millions of confirmed predictions, which you should consider surprinsing, if you believe that there is no real relationship between our mathematical model and reality, because in this case, it would be only a very lucky series of coincidences.
My point is not to give an absolute proof of Gods existence (I think someone here may have misunderstood my meaning) but only to show how modern science, and in particular physics, supports the idea of an intelligent and conscious God.
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
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
I agree with you in regard to God’s existence. But, mathematics only provides a means for our after-the-fact interpretation of how things work... I don’t think God and creation were limited to any sort of mathematical governance.
Upvote
0
Let me try to explain better my meaning. Scientific and technological progress has been pratically null during several thousands of years; it was only after the XVII century, after the discovery of Newton's laws and the laws of electromagnetism, that some important new devices were invented. During the last century, we have had an extraordinary technological progress, without any comparison with the preceeding periods. This is due to the discovery of the laws of quantum mechanics during the first decades of 1900, because quantum mechanics explain how atoms and molecules "work" and then allows us to handle matter also at the microscopic level. In other words, our capacity to use nature and natural phenomena depends on our knwoledge of the laws of physics, which are abstract and mathematical equations. At this point you have two options; either you choose to believe that the laws of physics really describes the intimate structure of the universe, or that our scientific knowledges give us no insight about the nature of the the universe. In the first case, you must conclude that the universe has a mathematical and rational structure, which implies an intelligent Creator, while in the second case you should cpnclude that all the present scientific and technological success is nothing more than a lucky series of coincidences.
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
Because "if you choose to believe that the laws of physics really describes the intimate structure of the universe", such structure would consist of abstract mathematical relations, because this is what the laws of physics describe.
Upvote
0
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
1. The abstract mathematical constructions describe the structure. This does not mean they are the structure.
2. Even if they are the structure, you have failed to demonstrate that complex mathematical relationships require an intelligence in order to exist.
Upvote
0
- Jul 18, 2019
- 664
- 306
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Atkins appears to be at least somewhat in possession of his faculties up to about the one minute mark. Then, things really begin to take a turn. Constructing (implying a builder) integers, which apparently had an intended purpose (implies a designer), from nothing, and then forcing (implying a source of energy--without origin, of course) them to operate apart from that purpose (necessitating chaos or intentional subterfuge, neither of which arise from nothing).In reading your post it reminded me of a short video with a great mathematician in Professor Lennox
Mental illness, folks. Mental illness.
I didn't even bother to listen to Lennox's response. As poorly as I've witnessed these nonsensical musings refuted at times (all too often, actually), I don't see how Lennox could have possibly replied at a disadvantage here.
Upvote
0
1) As I have already written, the laws of physics described abstract mathematical structures, therefore, if you accept that the laws of physics describe the nature of the universe, you must conclude that the universe has a rational mathematical structure.
2) The fact that abstract mathematical structures require an intelligenge in order to exist is obvious because maths is only the product of rational thought.
I think you are simply denying the evidence; hence I will not reply any more to this kind of post.
Best regards
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
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
I have no issues with this. However, there is no requirement that a rational mathematical structure requires an intelligence to produce it.
You make an assertion without any foundation. Here, I'll do the same.
Mathematics can be the product of rational thought, or can arise spontaneously.
Now I can't prove that, but its not my assertion we are discussing, but yours and you have not demonstrated that your assertion is true.
Hint: claiming something is "obvious" is an approached typically used when someone has no sound evidence or argument for their position.
I cannot deny the evidence, since you have produced no evidence. I repeat, stating something is obvious is not evidence. If it is so obvious then step me through what leads you to that conclusion.
I asked you the initial questions because I anticipated that you would produce an elegant, sophisticated argument. I expected to be left giving serious thought to your thesis. You are of course free to "clam up". The conclusion that others may make of your reluctance to address my valid questions could well be the obvious one.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
