Scientific argument for God's existence!!!!
#1
As a physiscist, I would like to share what I think is the strongest rational argument for God's existence, i.e. the mathematical representability of the natural laws. A well-known result of modern science is that natural phenomena can be sytematically predicted through a specific system of few mathematical equations, the laws of physics. The laws of physics describe nature in terms of quarks, quantum fields, bosons, etc.; all these terms actually refer to abstract mathematical omegle discord xender models which are the elements of a complex mathematical theory. Unless you consider the success of the laws of physics, which represents the basis of modern technological progress, as an unbelievably lucky series of coincidences, you should agree with the idea that our mathematical models describe the intimate structure of the universe; such structure would consist of abstract mathematical relations, because this is what the laws of physics express.

Since mathematical equations and mathematical models are abstract concepts, which cannot exist independently from a mind conceiving them, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of an intelligent and conscious God, conceiving it according to such mathematical structures.

I would like to clarify that my faith in Christ is certainly not based on my scientific knowledges; I believed in Christ long before I became a physiscist and the reason why I believe in Christ is essentially that I find His teachings fully convincing.
Nevertheless, studying physics I have found a striking confirmation of some of my beliefs.
I also know that atheists would not accept my argument because they reject "a priori" the idea of God, and therefore they reject any valid argument about God's existence.
[-] The following 1 user Likes AustinGreyson's post:
  • LionHippo
Reply
#2
Quote:also know that atheists would not accept my argument because they reject "a priori" the idea of God, and therefore they reject any valid argument about God's existence.

True enough. But there has to be more to the story when someone can't even entertain a possibility.

I am captivated by the existence of humus. Yes, the 'active' ingredient in humble (sorry) garden dirt.

Ask a person where the stuff comes from and they'll likely tell you instead what it's made of. Yet it's impossible that humus, the fundamental food of plants and thus of all living creatures, should exist in the first place. It's no good being the first organism on the planet when there isn't a decent bite about the place.

I mean, even an amoeba's gotta eat.

You're new, aren't you? Good to have you here.
Qui me amat, amet et Deum meum.
Reply
#3
I am captivated by the existence of humus...

Which came first, the humus or the tree?
Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Blind Horus's post:
  • Teresa Agrorum
Reply
#4
Quote:Which came first, the humus or the tree?

Why, the tree, of course. ;-)
Qui me amat, amet et Deum meum.
Reply
#5
Personally I don't think there's ANY purely "scientific" argument for the existence of God. Science in the modern sense rejects outright the possibility of anything that cannot be quantified, dissected, or put under a microscope.  God starts with the Trinity and the Incarnation.  The Trinitarian "perichoresis" is the ground of everything.  There's no way for reason alone to ever penetrate or understand the Essence of God. We need revelation and an inner faculty (the nous in Orthodoxy) to even begin to understand God through a glass darkly.  At best science can maybe point to some abstract demiurge or disinterested watchmaker but never the Trinitarian God of Christian Revelation.  

I'm sure this will get flak but it is what it is.  It's something I feel VERY strongly about.  Science is good in its domain but it's utterly useless in theological matters.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
[-] The following 2 users Like formerbuddhist's post:
  • LionHippo, Teresa Agrorum
Reply
#6
Quote:Science is good in its domain but it's utterly useless in theological matters.

This is why I say the tree came first. God's methodology astounds the idolators, for He first created light and then the sun (perhaps as an afterthought?) on the fourth day.

In the end, the atheist's 'explanation' is really no less miraculous than God's actual creation--a non-starter, but a beautiful one.
Qui me amat, amet et Deum meum.
Reply
#7
(05-16-2020, 03:28 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Personally I don't think there's ANY purely "scientific" argument for the existence of God. Science in the modern sense rejects outright the possibility of anything that cannot be quantified, dissected, or put under a microscope.  God starts with the Trinity and the Incarnation.  The Trinitarian "perichoresis" is the ground of everything.  There's no way for reason alone to ever penetrate or understand the Essence of God. We need revelation and an inner faculty (the nous in Orthodoxy) to even begin to understand God through a glass darkly.  At best science can maybe point to some abstract demiurge or disinterested watchmaker but never the Trinitarian God of Christian Revelation.  

I'm sure this will get flak but it is what it is.  It's something I feel VERY strongly about.  Science is good in its domain but it's utterly useless in theological matters.

FB, have you read Dr Edward Feser’s book, Five Proofs of the Existence of God? I agree with you, to a point, because for a substantial period of time, Natural Sciences became detached from Philosophy, to the detriment of Science. As Theoretical Physics becomes more mainstream and less fringe, science is going to realize in their great quest to understand the nature of our reality that, not only can it be known, but was known centuries ago.
"Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."  Matthew 9:10-14
Reply
#8
Not to derail the OP but I've wondered if photosynthesis has increased the diameter of the earth? I mean how is it that ancient civilizations are buried so deep? I think between the sun and the seasons many layers of soil have been layed down over the eons in the same way trees produce oxygen and o-zone they also grow and shed, wood, leafs and needles, producing soil.

For example once when they were trenching a pipeline along the edge of a field I looked and there was clearly at least 8 feet of top soil showing. That's a lot. Of course this whole area was once an ancient forest a hundred years ago or so.

Speaking of ancient forests the Eastern deciduous forests before the introduction of the earthworm by the Europeans had drifts of leafs around their trunks. Amazing. And the forest was so dense it was said a squirrel could travel tree to tree from the Atlantic Ocean to the Missippippi River.

On the other hand North Africa was once the breadbasket of the world and is now a vast sandy desert. Makes one wonder if there was a ancient forest there cut down for agriculture or something.

Of course we cut our forest for more the one reason. Number one teason: Indian clearance, (tfreemasons among others). I knew a guy who was born and raised in a small valley at the foot of the Coast Range. Old Ralph. He told me as a boy he remembered Indians still living in the old growth until they started clearing it. The trees were so big all they could do is fall them and burn them in place by chopping a hole in the trunk and starting a fire in the hole which they would keep going all summer.

Good old Ralph, the day after his dad died a stray dog showed up and they say from then on if you saw Ralph you saw Ralph carrying his dog. Good old Ralph they dont make 'em like that anymore.
Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Blind Horus's post:
  • Teresa Agrorum
Reply
#9
(05-17-2020, 12:27 AM)Blind Horus Wrote: Good old Ralph, the day after his dad died a stray dog showed up and they say from then on if you saw Ralph you saw Ralph carrying his dog. Good old Ralph they dont make 'em like that anymore.

My grandfather and my father-in-law were both named Ralph, but I also had some friends whose dog was named Ralph. A bit of a misnomer, because Ralph was a bitch! LOL!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Teresa Agrorum
Reply
#10
Quote:Not to derail the OP but I've wondered if photosynthesis has increased the diameter of the earth?

Before the plow, they say, top soil in some places in the midwest plains was nearly 30 feet deep.
Qui me amat, amet et Deum meum.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)