Can Science Prove the Existence of God?

[The_Other_Admin]

''I have no need for that hypothesis,'' Pierre-Simon Laplace famously responded when asked where God fit into his new astronomical theory. Using calculus and Newton's laws of gravity, he explained the forces that kept the planets from gradually drifting out of orbit, imparting some stability to the solar system. Newton had thought the Great Engineer must step in now and then to readjust the machine.

The theory didn't explain where the solar system came from. But Laplace also had an answer. The planets, he proposed, had congealed from a swirling cloud of gas and dust surrounding the sun.

O.K., so where did the sun and the mother cloud come from? And what set the whole thing revolving?

By now, scientists think they have even those answers, and they do not involve the intervention of any Great Engineer. The whole point of science for the last few hundred years has been to explain everything in terms of a physical process, something that can be described by equations.

The quest, however, is far from done. God, for those who want to use that term, can be invoked to account for phenomena that have not yet yielded to the scientific method. What is for some the ultimate question -- Does God exist? -- has become a matter of how much further the domain of the unknown will continue to contract, and if it will ultimately evaporate.

The momentum has been in that direction. The whirlpool of cosmic stuff that spawned the solar system spins because it is one small part of the great rotating galaxy, the Milky Way. When a random fluctuation causes enough gas and dust to bunch together, gravity takes over and celestial bodies begin to form. If you want to know where the galaxies came from, there are answers as well. Ultimately, it all comes down to the Big Bang.

That is where the chain of reasoning bottoms out. What caused the primordial explosion? At this point all but a few scientists go with Wittgenstein (''of what we cannot speak we must pass over in silence'') or with Kierkegaard, blindly taking the leap of faith into the abyss of the unknown, choosing what to believe.

Why there is something instead of nothing is not an issue that science is well equipped to address. As cosmologists understand it, the primordial eruption did not take place at a certain instant in a certain place. The Big Bang created absolutely everything, including space-time itself. How can anyone ask what set the whole thing going if there was no space or time for a creator to be in, much less any matter or energy for Him or Her or It to work with?

This rather formidable obstacle doesn't prevent a few people, some of them scientists, from trying to prove, or disprove, the existence of a deity. Almost any book or conference on science and religion inevitably includes what has become a metaphysical set piece:

The various parameters of the universe -- the charge of the electron, the strength of gravity, and so forth -- appear to be finely tuned to support the existence of stars and atoms and molecules and life. If the conditions at the instant of the Big Bang had been slightly different, the argument goes, then the universe (at least from an earthling's point of view) would have been a colossal waste of space-time. So we are the lucky benefactors of blind chance, or life was planned all along -- either by a Great Intender or by some physical or mathematical or logical law or process. Ignore the great Wittgensteinian whisper and you feel the queasy discomfort of a human mind pushed to the edge of what it is possible to know.

One theory is that the Big Bang actually spawned a plenitude of universes each randomly endowed with different physical conditions. People, of course, find themselves in one that is capable of supporting life.

''Universe'' used to mean everything that exists. To even think about this new scheme of things, the definition must be weakened to ''everything that we can get information about.'' We are required to believe in -- take on faith -- that there is something outside the universe. Might as well just call it God.

Whether the multiverse theory is more comforting than believing that human existence results from a senseless crapshoot or a holy decree is a matter of taste, not science. For many theorists it is also a betrayal of the great effort to explain the laws of physics. Some still hope to find ''a theory of the initial conditions of the universe,'' a supreme mathematical law, hidden perhaps in superstring theory, showing that the parameters of creation could have been set only in a certain way.

But then they would have to find a law to explain where the law came from . . . and ultimately an explanation of why the universe is mathematical and of where mathematics came from and what numbers are.

Like a petulant 8-year-old, we keep asking why, why, why, why. In the end, the answer is either ''just because'' or ''for God made it so.'' Take your pick.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02EED71139F932A25752C1A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

[vinod]

That is where the chain of reasoning bottoms out. What caused the primordial explosion? At this point all but a few scientists go with Wittgenstein (''of what we cannot speak we must pass over in silence'') or with Kierkegaard, blindly taking the leap of faith into the abyss of the unknown, choosing what to believe.

Why there is something instead of nothing is not an issue that science is well equipped to address. As cosmologists understand it, the primordial eruption did not take place at a certain instant in a certain place. The Big Bang created absolutely everything, including space-time itself. How can anyone ask what set the whole thing going if there was no space or time for a creator to be in, much less any matter or energy for Him or Her or It to work with?

This part goes some way in clarifying the epistemological barrier mentioned in other threads. However, I find myself struggling with comprehending this part. It seems beyond my intuitive abilities.

Thanks anyway, Chuck. Keep them coming. PM me if need be.

Regards

[Watson]

Like a petulant 8-year-old, we keep asking why, why, why, why. In the end, the answer is either ''just because'' or ''for God made it so.'' Take your pick.

I love that statement.

I can understand why someone would want to postulate God. Having God as a means to 'igniting' the Big Bang is a noble idea.

But, I've always believed the real question on this issue to be -

'Is the Universe complex enough on its own?'

or

'Does the Universe need some kind of entity (like God) more complex than itself in order to exist?'

[MF]

Like a petulant 8-year-old, we keep asking why, why, why, why. In the end, the answer is either ''just because'' or ''for God made it so.'' Take your pick.

I know a better answer for kids like that "we don't have all the answers"

My kids asks what hapens after death.. what should I tell him? I tell him some people believe this.. some people believe that... but nobody really knows! Thats as honest as you can be ;)

[The_Other_Admin]

This part goes some way in clarifying the epistemological barrier mentioned in other threads. However, I find myself struggling with comprehending this part. It seems beyond my intuitive abilities.

Thanks anyway, Chuck. Keep them coming. PM me if need be.

Regards
I don't understand what is the question exactly. Bold part says:
1. Big bang created everything, including time, space, and laws of physics.
2. There is nothing to test or ask there scientifically if all the properties we depend on didn't exist at that time. (If I understood the statement correctly).

It is something similar to this:

What came before the Big Bang?

The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble. Thus I conclude that: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBB

[MF]

I find myself struggling with comprehending this part. It seems beyond my intuitive abilities.

Many things are, who can imagine something as beein infinite? but if you want more about how it is useless to ask what came before the big bang you should ask yourself what is north from the northpole?

Steve Hawkins is the one who said that, if you read his lectures it may be a little better to understand.

"Can Science Prove the Existence of God?"

No offcource not, thats why its called a belief

[sheik]

Salaam,

Yes and no, i only have time to give the no perspective, because the extent of the yes argument rests in the teleological, and cosmological reasons provided. I suggest you guys check them out if you are interested in how science and mathematics proves the existence of God. as for no, here is what i have to say

From scholars like soren kierkegaard and the like, you must understand that the the essence of God is unproven, and to prove the unproven is to render God as non existent.

-sheik

[Ramsey]

*chuckles* Seeing this thread again made me wonder something.

Prove that you exist.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,
Prove that you exist.Descartes set out to do that very thing, perhaps not aware that St Augustine had done so a millenium prior. It is almost clichéd to point out the flaw in Descartes' cogito, ergo sum, but nevertheless, it was a worthy effort.

The self-evident and obvious correction is naturally sum, having the added benefit of being shorter, which surely is a great-big plus in our current/present culture which has somehow transmogrified 'being pressed on time' into a simple fashion accessory. Sum sums up (pun intended) the proof of being; one cannot be mistaken about one's own existence. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of years of human thought is contained in one simple utterance consisting of one simple word. Beautiful, innit?

Regards,

[Ratatosk]

Salam Sheik,
I suggest you guys check [teleology and cosmology] out if you are interested in how science and mathematics proves the existence of God.Just noticed this. It must have slipped me by unnoticed (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ninja_parade_slips_through_town). I would absolutely love to read/hear how science "does the undoable". What, dear bro, were you referring to w/ this?

Regards,

[Ramsey]

Salam,Descartes set out to do that very thing, perhaps not aware that St Augustine had done so a millenium prior. It is almost clichéd to point out the flaw in Descartes' cogito, ergo sum, but nevertheless, it was a worthy effort.

The self-evident and obvious correction is naturally sum, having the added benefit of being shorter, which surely is a great-big plus in our current/present culture which has somehow transmogrified 'being pressed on time' into a simple fashion accessory. Sum sums up (pun intended) the proof of being; one cannot be mistaken about one's own existence. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of years of human thought is contained in one simple utterance consisting of one simple word. Beautiful, innit?

Regards,

Descartes was wrong, you are all a product of my abnormally vivid imagination.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,
Descartes was wrong, you are all a product of my abnormally vivid imagination.That'd be a case for solipsistic philosophers to ponder. But you're right, of course. Descartes was wrong.

Regards,

[Watson]

I like the china teapot analogy;


If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Bertrand Russell - 1952

[Ratatosk]

Greetings in peace Watson,
[stuff]Ya.

Science has always been quite able to answer the query "how", but peculiarly unable to answer the question "why". Many have problems with this. Dunno why.

Pun intended.

Regards,

[Watson]

Science has always been quite able to answer the query "how", but peculiarly unable to answer the question "why". Many have problems with this. Dunno why.

Religion is unusual in that it is pseudo-science and philosophy all rolled into one. It is therefore capable of answering "how" and "why" questions similtaneously.

However, the problem with religion is that its pseudo-science is, by definition, always unreliable. Many people, like myself, would also say that it is utterly wrong in most instances. For example, God did not create Adam in some kind of 'hey-presto' event (either in mind or body), and angels do not exist or interact with humans.

However, if we combine real science with philosophy then a truthful, coherent and believable world-view results. It's called scientific humanism. The former deals with the "how" questions and the latter deals with the "why" questions. And both together they give an admirable 'meaning of life'.

[Ratatosk]

Greetings in peace Watson,
Religion is unusual in that it is pseudo-science and philosophy all rolled into one.From where I sit, you seem to have a very childlike understanding of what religion is. Moreover, you seem to think "religion" = "literalistic reading of judeo-christian scripture". If this really is the case, then I have nothing further to add.

Not only that; since you are claiming "religion is a pseudo-science", I'm afraid you will have to expound on that a bit. It doesn't make any sense, see.

It is therefore capable of answering "how" and "why" questions similtaneously.Manifestly, you seem to lack a clear understanding of what religion is. Dear Watson, if this is the case it places you at quite a, let's say, disadvantage.

However, the problem with religion is that its pseudo-science is, by definition, always unreliable.Pseudo-science has no scientific value. It's not "unreliable", it is worthless; it has no value as a scientific system whatsoever. Astrology and homeopathy come to mind. The practicioners of homeopathy, for instance, make scientific claims and vehemently deny any accusations of quackery, when simple mathematics will tell a completely different tale; an elegant example of when applying the scientific method can prove a practice unscientific, to be sure.

Dear Watson, you must understand, however, that this seems to have little impact on how people percieve the world. Many people still trust dowsing, even though blind, random chance is equally successful in finding water. As an aside, I myself have managed to pinpoint a well by dowsing. The details were kinda eerie, meaning that my father had pinpointed the exact same spot an hour earlier without telling me about it. Our neighbours dug a hole, and lo! and behold; water was found. Mind you, I still don't believe dowsing has any effect.

Many people, like myself, would also say that [religion] is utterly wrong in most instances.There are some people who claim that any and all claims to anything that cannot be seen are false. However, it seems your naïve understanding of religion does not allow you to comprehend that religion cannot be "wrong" in a scientific sense. It can only be disbelieved.

Please, please, please understand this.

Pretty please?

Pretty please with cherry on top?

For example, God did not create Adam in some kind of 'hey-presto' event, and angels do not exist or interact with humans.You do know that this claim is exclusive to the Mosaic traditions, no? Not even all of those, either. Buddhism is profoundly silent on this issue. The taoistic traditions don't have a whole lot to say about it, interestingly. Wicca is quiet as a mafia witness, too. The practitioners of zen have not a pipsqueak of info about it, for obvious reasons. Heck, buddhists don't even ascribe to a deity.

It really, really, really would be of the greatest service to all involved if you would be so kind as to stop being, how to say it, wrong. Claiming to stick to the mere facts and then not doing so doesn't reflect well on your character, either.

However, if we combine real science with philosophy then a truthful, coherent and believable world-view results.Not to be the last to point out that "real science" is a redundant expression -- right up there with the equally common "very unique" -- this is yet another positive assertion. A claim. The burden of proof, and all that.

It's called scientific humanism.There are a lot of schools of thought that come out of such a thinking. Scientific humanism is but one.

And [it produces] an admirable 'meaning of life'.For some, secular humanism is the answer to their queries. These people have found their haven and their soul is a rest. I am content that these people have found their path, because there are clearly many who don't. If more people would be able to see that there are many ways of seeing the world and many ways of understanding the reality surrounding us, I think the world would be a better place.

Somehow and for some reason I have a gut feeling you're (again) going to tell me what I believe. I also have a gut feeling you're not going to comprehend anything of what I write to you.

I feel like Don Quixote.
I don't know why.

Regards,

[Watson]

You do know that this claim is exclusive to the Mosaic traditions, no? Not even all of those, either. Buddhism is profoundly silent on this issue. The taoistic traditions don't have a whole lot to say about it, interestingly. Wicca is quiet as a mafia witness, too. The practitioners of zen have not a pipsqueak of info about it, for obvious reasons. Heck, buddhists don't even ascribe to a deity.

I actually like those religions Ratatosk and I'm very fond of Buddhism. This is because they are philosophy based and use logical deduction to formulate their beliefs. Because they have no central dogma (ie. a revealed book 'straight from heaven') their ideologies are both gentle and flexible.

On the other hand I consider monotheism to be a profound enemy of humanity. The God of monotheism is tribalistic, parochial, jeolous, sexist, petty, and horridly patriachal. Unfortunately, this dispicable character as portrayed in the monotheistic texts infects the minds of its devotees and many end up behaving the same way - 'monkey see monkey do'.

To be honest Ratatosk I have a high regard for non-monotheistic religions and enjoy their colour, vibrancy and peaceful world-view. There is something intrinsically disarming and pleasant about the so-called Eastern religions.

On the other hand monotheistic literalists deserve as good as they get. There really is no point in being tolerant when monotheism is the very embodiment of intolerance. For example, being open-minded and nice to a theologian like Imran Hossein is like sucking up to H. Himler. What's the point? No, the only recourse for any caring person is to treat the ideology of a right-wing monotheist with the contempt it deserves and shove it back up his throat. Metaphorically and non-violently of course, as the pen really is mightier than the sword.

One last thing, and just for the record. I understand the profound difference between Jews/Christians/Muslims and Judaism/Christianity/Islam. I have no negative feelings toward the average and naive monotheist who is merely trying to get through life the best they can. My contempt is reserved for the body-politic and the loud mouthed theologians who perpetuate their sordid ideology with ridiculous lies.

[Watson]

Somehow and for some reason I have a gut feeling you're (again) going to tell me what I believe. I also have a gut feeling you're not going to comprehend anything of what I write to you.

I think that you're probably right there Ratatosk for very good reasons.

[Ratatosk]

Greetings in peace Watson,
I actually like those religions Ratatosk and I'm very fond of Buddhism.Likewise. You and I both, I guess.

This is because they are philosophy based and use logical deduction to formulate their beliefs.To each his/her own. I find the lack of self to be the most fascinating aspect of the buddhistic worldview.

Because they have no central dogma (ie. a revealed book 'straight from heaven') their ideologies are both gentle and flexible.There exists buddhistic dogma, to be sure. There is a profound lack of revelation in most "eastern" religions, tho. In that you are, of course, right. This lack of revelation does give, to a great extent, these religious traditions their character.

On the other hand I consider monotheism to be a profound enemy of humanity.If I may interject; perhaps your definition of what monotheism is, is the real culprit. Ever thought of that?

The God of monotheism is tribalistic, parochial, jeolous, sexist, petty, and horridly patriachal.To me, the Godhead is manifestly diametrically different. There clearly must be something askew here.

Unfortunately, this dispicable character as portrayed in the monotheistic texts infects the minds of its devotees and many end up behaving the same way - 'monkey see monkey do'.Social programming is incredibly powerful, so much is true. I wouldn't put the blame squarely at the feet of religion, tho. For many reasons. The first is naturally that it's far too convenient. It releaves the individual, and ultimately the collective, of the brunt of their responsibility.

To be honest Ratatosk I have a high regard for non-monotheistic religions and enjoy their colour, vibrancy and peaceful world-view.As I've said, so have I.

There is something intrinsically disarming and pleasant about the so-called Eastern religions.I am particularly fond of the zen tradition myself. If you care to kno.

On the other hand monotheistic literalists deserve as good as they get.That's a bit fascistic, wouldn't you agree?

There really is no point in being tolerant when monotheism is the very embodiment of intolerance.You and I are manifestly talking about two different religious views here.

For example, being open-minded and nice to a theologian like Imran Hossein is like sucking up to H. Himler.I don't really understand this analogy. I am manifestly slow. Please guide me gently here.

One last thing, and just for the record. I understand the profound difference between Jews/Christians/Muslims and Judaism/Christianity/Islam.I applaud thee. Many do not see that difference.

I have no negative feelings toward the average and naive monotheist who is merely trying to get through life the best they can.A worthy attitude, to be sure.

My contempt is reserved for the body-politic and the loud mouthed theologians who perpetuate their sordid ideology with ridiculous lies.I would tend to agree. I, however, wouldn't restrict myself to theologians only.

Regards,

[sheik]

my brother,

for the teleological and cosmological i suggest checking the following text out

Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings (http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Religion-Selected-Michael-Peterson/dp/0195188292/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199685221&sr=8-1) by Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger

[Ratatosk]

Salam sheik,

Hey, it's sure been a while, hasn't it?

However, can you offer some kinda condensed synopsis of the main points?

Regards,