• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Scientific Argument for God's existence

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by mmarco, Aug 7, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mmarco

    mmarco New Member

    81
    +8
    Italy
    Catholic
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +9,238
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Yet no ontological claim for them need be made one way or the other for them to possess instrumentality.

    In other words, Mathematical Realism (an unfalsifiable proposition) proves the existence of God (another unfalsifiable proposition.)
     
  3. caerlerion

    caerlerion New Member

    78
    +83
    United States
    Agnostic
    In Relationship
    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."
     
  4. lesliedellow

    lesliedellow Member

    +2,511
    Calvinist
    Single
    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.
     
  5. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,395
    United States
    Christian
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  6. ananda

    ananda Early Buddhist

    +1,765
    Private
    "God" as "the" cause is only one of many speculations in regards to observed evidences on the physical plane of existence.
     
  7. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,395
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Welcome to CF! Glad to see you here.
     
  8. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +9,238
    United States
    Other Religion
    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.
     
  9. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,395
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  10. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +4,722
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    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. 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.
     
  11. Mule Train

    Mule Train New Member Supporter

    15
    +1
    United States
    Christian
    Divorced
    Nature has never heard of math. Nature is a balance of asymmetric motion.
     
  12. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +569
    Humanist
    Private
    .. 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).
     
  13. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +569
    Humanist
    Private
    Math is a human invention.

    That's your model (and meaning) of 'Nature' then.
    Begs the question of: what happened to the 'symmetric motion' bit though?
     
  14. Mule Train

    Mule Train New Member Supporter

    15
    +1
    United States
    Christian
    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.
     
  15. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +4,722
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    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.

    Yes, that would be why a said this:

    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.

    That would be a belief.
     
  16. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +569
    Humanist
    Private
    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 ..
     
  17. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +569
    Humanist
    Private
    We are part of nature .. laughing with derision is what a human does .. therefore 'nature' must be human.
    How did that happen?
     
  18. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +569
    Humanist
    Private
    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?

    Ok .. we're getting somewhere then.

    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?)

    Objectively prove it, then!
     
  19. lesliedellow

    lesliedellow Member

    +2,511
    Calvinist
    Single
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    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: Aug 7, 2019
  20. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,395
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...