Scientific Argument for God's existence

variant · Aug 18, 2019

mmarco said:
Actually, my initial point is exactly the opposite since I attribute to God the creation of the universe on the basis of our scientific knowledges about the universe; in fact, a rational analysis of the laws of physics make me understand that the universe is the realization of abstract mathematical models, and my understanding of the intrinsic conceptual nature of structure of the universe makes me understand that the universe is created by an intelligent conscious God.

In order to understand the universe by attributing it to a God, you would have to understand the God, and the universe, and the connection between them.

What sort of real world consequences could you demonstrate or predict based upon your understanding, and only that?

If you don't have some of those, then your "understanding" doesn't actually make any distinction.

We call such things "ideas", they don't always amount to much.

Of course you may disagree with my conclusions, but your sentence above is certainlty wrong.

If you knew your conclusions were correct you could demonstrate them objectively. So, my guess is that you don't. If you don't, then you are doing exactly what I am saying by attributing something you don't actually understand to a God, that you also don't understand.

Why should I proceed by assuming your conclusions are true?

Feel free to demonstrate that they are.

I understand that you may be concluding a God that you think you understand based upon a universe you think you understand, but color me skeptical that I have just inadvertently run into the most advanced human being to ever exist.

What you are actually claiming here is that you can reduce the entirety of the universe to an explanatory mathematical model, that you understand consciousness explicitly, and that you can connect the model, to a literal God and it's consciousness, which you also understand...

I'm actually quite impressed that you have the boldness to claim such a thing if you didn't do so unintentionally.

mmarco · Aug 18, 2019

variant said:
In order to understand the universe by attributing it to a God, you would have to understand the God, and the universe, and the connection between them.

I disagree; I do not need a full understanding of God to attribute the creation of the universe to God. In fact it is sufficient to understand that the intimate structure of the universe has an intrinsic conceptual and rational nature, to understand that the existence of the universe depends on a thinking God. This is not a full understanding of God,but only the understanding that God has rational capacities.

variant · Aug 18, 2019

mmarco said:
I disagree; I do not need a full understanding of God to attribute the creation of the universe to God. In fact it is sufficient to understand that the intimate structure of the universe has an intrinsic conceptual and rational nature, to understand that the existence of the universe depends on a thinking God. This is not a full understanding of God,but only the understanding that God has rational capacities.

No, it's not sufficient.

You can only have a real understanding of things that are in fact true.

This makes your argument circular if you can't demonstrate that your conclusions are true.

Your "understanding" is free to be a misunderstanding.

Nothing about what you've said frees you from my criticism that you are explaining one thing you don't know by attributing it to another thing you don't know. It is in fact exactly what you are doing.

In my last post I just expanded on exactly how much depth of this problem you don't know the first thing about.

Feel free to demonstrate any of your assumptions.

Start here:

"God has rational capacities"

This assumption is a bit difficult, since "God" is what you were trying to demonstrate with your argument.

If that one doesn't suit go with:

"the universe is the realization of abstract mathematical models"

There are probably 50 philosophical and scientific arguments you've sort of just white washed over here.

Or:

"the intrinsic conceptual nature of structure of the universe makes me understand that the universe is created by an intelligent conscious God."

Indicating that you think you can understand the root nature of consciousness and God enough to attribute one to the other and claim a literal connection with your understanding of the intrinsic nature of the universe.

Well have at it.

Demonstrate your understanding of the INTRINSIC NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE, CONSCIOUSNESS and the DIVINE!

Can you, perhaps even only for a single post, explain one thing, about any of your world view discussed here, without using something you probably understand even less as a foundation for your argument?

Belk · Aug 18, 2019

mmarco said:
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.

As a layman I would expect a "physiscist" to know how to spell physicist.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 18, 2019

variant said:
It's simply not possible to explain a circumstance one doesn't understand by positing a being one doesn't understand.

For instance, I don't even have the beginning of an idea what has to be "just so" for a God to exist. I know less about it than the universe.

How do we rate by explaining circumstances we barely understand with ones we certainly don't?

This cloth eared unbeliever will point you to the history of your idea of attributing things we don't currently understand to the Gods, it has a bad tract record as it only ever applies to things we don't understand.

When we do understand things, we cease to attribute them to Gods.

That should, of course, be a lesson to the believer, but they will move on to the next thing we don't currently understand, every, single, time.

Quite; you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

variant · Aug 18, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Quite; you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

Inexplicable, purposefully obtuse, ill defined and unfalcifiable.

The answer to every possible question thus answering none. The divine.

mmarco · Aug 18, 2019

variant said:
Feel free to demonstrate any of your assumptions.

I have never said that I can give an absolute proof of the existence of God; I do not need such a proof, because I understand that God exists as a conscious and intelligent Being. This truth is evident to my mind and in my previous posts I have explained one of the reasons why I understand such truth. I do not have to demostrate anything.
Actually I am a chirstian and I have come here to talk to other christians; I do not even understand why people who are agnostic or atheist come here instead of going to some agnostic or atheist forum.

variant · Aug 18, 2019

mmarco said:
I have never said that I can give an absolute proof of the existence of God; I do not need such a proof, because I understand that God exists as a conscious and intelligent Being.

I didn't ask for absolute proof, I merely asked only for you to demonstrate how you understand things and thus why I should take your claims seriously.

Enough to show what you "know" about these subjects, since you claimed that your conclusions were not based upon things you were ignorant about, but rather the opposite, which would be, that they are based upon things you know to be true.

Feel free to do that any time. Otherwise I stand by my original statement and sentiment.

This truth is evident to my mind and in my previous posts I have explained one of the reasons why I understand such truth. I do not have to demostrate anything.

Evident things generally require something called evidence, the language should be pretty straight forward. Evident things are easy to see or obvious because they can easily be demonstrated.

So, you should probably retract your claim because you've abused the language enough today.

Actually I am a chirstian and I have come here to talk to other christians; I do not even understand why people who are agnostic or atheist come here instead of going to some agnostic or atheist forum.

You came to the physical and life sciences part of a christian forum open to the public at large for "discussion and debate" and entered a thread labeled:
"Scientific Argument for God's existence"

You don't get to be snippy with me the atheist/agnostic for engaging you when you reply to something I say. I am guilty of (gasp) engaging in the topic at hand with people who have chosen to speak with me.

mmarco · Aug 18, 2019

variant said:
I didn't ask for absolute proof, I merely asked only for you to demonstrate how you understand things and thus why I should take your claims seriously.

I think I have already done what you are asking in may previous posts; I see no reasons to repeat my explanations.
Of course you are free not to take my claims seriously.

By the way, you have not answered my question; why do you, who are an agnostic, come here in a christian forum instead of going to some agnostic forum?
Science is a topic discussed also in agnostic forums.

variant · Aug 18, 2019

mmarco said:
By the way, you have not answered my question; why do you, who are an agnostic, come here in a christian forum instead of going to some agnostic forum?
Science is a topic discussed also in agnostic forums.

You did not frame that as a question in your last post.

I enjoy engaging with people who don't think like me.

variant · Aug 18, 2019

mmarco said:
I think I have already done what you are asking in may previous posts; I see no reasons to repeat my explanations.
Of course you are free not to take my claims seriously.

OK, if you feel you've already answered my questions then I'll just go over your posts. You've only made 30 or so, it shouldn't be so hard.

Ophiolite · Aug 18, 2019

mmarco said:
Actually I am a chirstian and I have come here to talk to other christians; I do not even understand why people who are agnostic or atheist come here instead of going to some agnostic or atheist forum.

Most of the sub-forums here are only open to Christians. You may feel more comfortable restricting your posting to those and avoiding the handful that are accessible to all.

On the other hand, do you see no value in being exposed to different ideas? I think by restricting ones access to different, views, cultures, politics, nationalities etc, one runs the danger of becoming narrow minded and complacent. From a Christian standpoint wouldn't that be a waste of the intellect God gave you?

mmarco · Aug 18, 2019

variant said:
I enjoy engaging with people who don't think like me.

I do not know what you mean with the term "engaging" because the tone of your posts seemed to me very harsh and I don't like it.
Anyway I have not come here to engage with agnostic and atheists, but also to talk to other chirstians. I am available to talk also to atheists, but only if they are sincerely interested in understang my view, which I do not think you are.

variant · Aug 18, 2019

mmarco said:
I do not know what you mean with the term "engaging" because the tone of your posts seemed to me very harsh and I don't like it.

The idea is to get you to express what you think and why you think it. A lot of people have some valuable insight and good experience even if they aren't particularly good at expressing it.

The goal here isn't necessarily to make friends.

Your claims so far have been so lofty that my skepticism seethes.

Anyway I have not come here to engage with agnostic and atheists, but also to talk to other chirstians. I am available to talk also to atheists, but only if they are sincerely interested in understang my view, which I do not think you are.

So, I should stop reading your other posts to try to make some sense of where you are coming from?

mmarco · Aug 18, 2019

variant said:
So, I should stop reading your other posts to try to make some sense of where you are coming from?

This is your decision; if you are not interested in my view, then stop reading; otherwise, read them.

variant · Aug 18, 2019

mmarco said:
This is your decision; if you are not interested in my view, then stop reading; otherwise, read them.

So, unsurprisingly I can't find anything that actually backs your assertions that you could actually claim to know.

Your take on quantum mechanics is fun, but I don't see how you could possibly support the conclusion that an independent conscious God mind is required for us to have a very good model of quantum mechanics that makes predictions well into the future.

That is free to mean that quantum mechanics was particularly easy to model given what we already did with math at the macro level.

The Standard model came with a huge amount of experimentation and the input of a lot of people, so, the idea that they boiled it down to it's essence and made some great predictions isn't really enough to proclaim that "obviously God must exists".

Fundamental particles are free to be as logical as mathematics, what does that show us really? A quantum mechanical revolution that showed we missed a bunch of stuff and opened up new avenues of scientific intrigue certainly wouldn't show God to be false either so I don't get it.

mmarco · Aug 18, 2019

variant said:
Fundamental particles are free to be as logical as mathematics, what does that show us really?

Your statement above is simply absurd to me becasue logic is by definition (I quote the Cambridge Dictionary) reasonable thinking, that is a particular way of thinking, especially one that is reasonable and based on good judgment.
Therefore fundamental particles cannot be logical since logics implies a thinking mind.

I couldn't explain it better. I am sorry that you are unable to understand this very obvious fact.

variant · Aug 18, 2019

mmarco said:
Your statement above is simply absurd to me becasue logic is by definition (I quote the Cambridge Dictionary) reasonable thinking, that is a particular way of thinking, especially one that is reasonable and based on good judgment.
Therefore fundamental particles cannot be logical since logics implies a thinking mind.

I couldn't explain it better. I am sorry that you are unable to understand this very obvious fact.

I mean they act in a way we find rational and logical. Simple systems that exhibit behavior that we find rational and logical to us are the easiest to predict.

So, what about this requires a God?

The fundamental things that the universe is made out of have predictable characteristics. So what?

SelfSim · Aug 18, 2019

Ophiolite said:
SelfSim said:

Ophiolite said:

You persist in making statements that are superficially sound, yet upon analysis are devoid of meaning. It's very frustrating.

Click to expand...

Meanings are subject to their contexts .. perhaps you might try reviewing your own contexts in order to allay your frustrations? Its all relative.

Click to expand...

No matter what you think, your fist sentence does not parse in a meaningful way, regardless of context. D-

Curious.
I think you're confused about the topic of semantics. Semantics is an exploration of what people are trying to mean when they use words, and not: an exploration of some mind independent reality (MIR) and finding where those words appear in that.
This is the whole point of using mind dependent reality (MDR) thinking, to get away from the idea that the meanings of words (such as 'your mind' and 'my mind') are anything other than our intentions behind using those words.
So when someone (like mmarco) says 'you can't tell if other minds exist or not', I just hear them misusing the meaning that people intend when they use the word 'exist'. Simply avoid the wrong meaning that 'exist' equals 'is present in the MIR', and all mmarco's (and your own) challenges (ie: 'frustrations') fade into nothing.
'Exists' is our word and therefore it means whatever we intend it as meaning. It has no meaning on its own. It requires a human mind to give it that meaning and is not something it acquires from something else independent from our minds.
(This is what I meant by 'context', in my post).

SelfSim · Aug 18, 2019

mmarco said:
Therefore fundamental particles cannot be logical since logics implies a thinking mind.

Well ok then .. what you mean by 'fundamental particles' must also imply a thinking mind. Otherwise, why wouldn't it?

Scientific Argument for God's existence

Happy Cat

Active Member

Happy Cat

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Happy Cat

Active Member

Happy Cat

Active Member

Happy Cat

Happy Cat

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Active Member

Happy Cat

Active Member

Happy Cat

Active Member

Happy Cat

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Similar threads