Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Can God's Existence be Proven through Science?

WOW, veteran, what great references! Thanks much for teaching me something that had elluded my studies!

Additionally, as I've also posted in other threads, let me recommend one of Josh McDowell's books from the seventies, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," not to also mention, "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict," to all who question God's existence.

BTW, as I recently found out on the TV program "Reasons to Believe" on the Trinty Broadcast Network, over 90% of astronomers DO believe that there IS a God!

In Christ,

Pogo
 
I hadn't taken the time to read the last few posts, so I don't know if this has been said yet. I read most of what was on the first page, noticing how what I'm about to say never really came up.

Okay.
It can be a tricky question. I see some people say "Without a doubt, no." and some people say "Oh, definitely." I'll play both, actually. I suppose it depends on HOW you think. I'll try to make this as brief as I can in hopes to get to the clincher.

Point 1: Every human being has the capability to think, reflect, and to love. Science cannot prove love exists. Love is a choice, be it rational or not. Many people make illogical decisions all the time. I've done it countless times. (darn video games suck my life away. :P) But we all have love, or the capability of it. So...who (or' what,' for humor's sake) put that there? It's a scientific question. Transitive property, if you will.

Let's take this idea of "God." What is a true "God?" In my opinion, a true god would be so powerful and so intelligant/brilliant, that no other thing could have put it/Him there. All those Greek and Roman gods and titans should have NOTHING on a true god. They're limited in power and ability. The definition or epidamy of a god would be NO limits or power.

Point 2: So now, let's assume (I'm trying to be sensitive for those that do not hold to the Christian mindset here) this "God" exists, and He creates something. In order for anyone to create anything, especially something they're particularly excited or proud of from the start - putting their time, effort and energy into it - they need a resource; some kind of material or pre-fabricated factor to partake from. So, if nothing else exists except Himself, He has no other place to draw from but from Himself. (again, scientific, logical thinking) He takes His love, His kindness, His intellect, His ability to think and choose..ALL the things we as humans have ourselves, and puts it into us. (I'm not using the Bible here, folks. This is pure common sense.)

I know how I get when I finish a really good piece of literature, or a drawing that takes me HOURS to do. I feel great, and there are several art pieces which I can say I'm proud of without going over the boundary of boasting. Artists can look at their work and appreciate it, and say that "it was good" (as God did in Genesis)

Point 3, and hopefully, here's the clincher/my answer to the question: Obviously, any creator is seperate from their creation. They're two seperate entities, one outside of the other. So, taking into account/assuming that the previous statements are true (thinking scientifically, again), we can then make the logical deduction that God is seperate from us. And taking point 1 into account, that a true "God" would be all-powerful, making mistakes or making a bad judgment call is completely contradictory to His nature, and should actually be deemed impossible if you want to think logically.
Again, on the logical path, you can now assume and blatently observe that, since both parties (the Creator and the creation) have their own volition and sense of choice making, that this "God" can operate completely seperate from His creation; OUTSIDE His creation.

It is for this reason that I say one cannot prove God's existance through science.
*sighs, deep breath*

okay, that was the first half. :P

Still on the logical path here, any creator, even on this planet, can create something and do whatever the heck they want outside or apart from their creation. Much like a child thinks something is going to go a certain way, only to find out the parent had something else in mind is very similar to the way a Creator might act. Children learn patterns when they're young. Humans observe all the causes and affects and act accordingly. But...what happens when things don't match up so much? How would you explain that?

The human mind adapts into a program, sometimes. We see what seem to be constants (as opposed to variables) in this life and adapt ourselves to them to feel more secure and well-placed, much like children learning behavioral patterns with their parents to either get what they want or to avoid getting spanked. Often times, children expect something due to what they think they have learned, so they're surprised and somewhat confused when the parent does something new or out of the blue. So...what does it mean when things that happen outside to explainable bounds of what we know to be science? What does it mean when things that shouldn't happen...HAPPEN?

Think of a computer program and randomized AI constructs. You place AI constructs, "capable" if you will, of performing certain actions in a random, unpredictable pattern...into a PROGRAMMED environment - an environment that only knows how to act based upon pre-determined factors and constants, hardly any variables if any.

Examples of things that SHOULDN'T happen 'without' a God: Exodus 17 - Moses held up his rod towards the sky and the sun stood still for three straight 24 hour days. NASA, 2000 years later, attempted to reverse engineer the earth's timetable, but they reached a certain point several thousands of years BC and found discrepancies and problems they couldn't get past. A Christian scientist told them to humor him and plug in the factor of the sun sitting still for three straight days..and everything matched up. No lie. True story.
An older woman goes into an IC unit for newborns, prays over one child, walks out, and moments later doctors find out every child in the IC unit is fine. ALL AT ONCE.

Faulty programming, maybe? well, who's to say the Original Programmer didn't change the code for one instance or another? If He's a creator, He can act outside of the bounds He's made for us anytime He wants, just like a parent can change things up in their home in concerns to their children.

So, in turn, science CAN prove that there is a God, because how else can you explain discrepencies and things that just shouldn't happen?

In terms of trying to disprove that there is a God, no one can do that. We're still exploring new parts of the universe to this day, and finding new planets parsecs away (yes, it's an actual measurement, not just made up in Star Wars. It's 3.something light years). Someone saying there is no God is like them saying there's no little purple rock with blue polka dots on it. They'd have to travel to all those different planets in the universe and look in every nook and cranny to be able to say that.

what say you?
 
But man's expanding discovery of the universe and the things in it does not mean the universe itself is expanding or creating itself, changing maybe, but not actually creating. It's man's comprehension and methods of seeing it that's expanding.

The empirical law of physics that material matter of the universe cannot be created nor destroyed has never been defeated.

The Hebrews 11:3 and Romans 1:19-20 verses are talking about facts involving the existence of the material universe, i.e., material matter with "things made". The spiritual part in those verses is about the existence of the invisible things of God behind the creation of the material universe.

With all theories of evolution, the point of origin of material matter is where evolutionists have to stop, because their evolution theory can't support the idea of something coming from nothing. Even our basic logic has a hard time considering that something can come from nothing.

But by their failure to even consider the point of origin of material matter, that is like admitting the probability of a Creator, but just refusing to admit that probability. For one to make the leap and say, "Yeah, the existence of the material universe does reveal evidence it didn't create itself, and something else different than matter had to be involved," that doesn't require Faith. What requires Faith is admitting that The Invisible God is The One behind its creation.
 
As this is my first post, allow my to introduce myself. I am a research physicist working for the US government, and am probably older than any of you. :)

In your thread, I see a common misunderstanding about the Universe and the Big Bang. Since Einstein, we no longer consider the Universe to be imbedded in absolute space and time. Rather, space-time is a property of the Universe. There is no time before the Big Bang just as there is no temperature below absolute zero. Hence, it is not scientifically sound to ask who/what created the Universe since it has existed for all time (time being a property of the Universe).

There are hypotheses that the Universe is part of a Multiverse that has countless alternative Universes as sub-components. Such hypotheses are not considered proper scientific conjectures unless they give testable predictions. This would equally apply to claims that YHWH created the Universe.

Best Regards,
Physicist
 
Physicist said:
As this is my first post, allow my to introduce myself. I am a research physicist working for the US government, and am probably older than any of you. :)
Welcome to the forums! :)

Physicist said:
In your thread, I see a common misunderstanding about the Universe and the Big Bang. Since Einstein, we no longer consider the Universe to be imbedded in absolute space and time. Rather, space-time is a property of the Universe. There is no time before the Big Bang just as there is no temperature below absolute zero. Hence, it is not scientifically sound to ask who/what created the Universe since it has existed for all time (time being a property of the Universe).

There are hypotheses that the Universe is part of a Multiverse that has countless alternative Universes as sub-components. Such hypotheses are not considered proper scientific conjectures unless they give testable predictions. This would equally apply to claims that YHWH created the Universe.
So, given that "Such hypotheses are not considered proper scientific conjectures unless they give testable predictions," and that "This would equally apply to claims that YHWH created the Universe," how does the theory of the Big Bang fit into it? Is there any actual difference between positing Big Bang theory or arguing to a Creator? Both positions believe that time began at "that moment," that space-time is a property of the Universe.

The problem is that the Big Bang just happened and in and of itself cannot explain "why there is something rather than nothing" (I don't recall who first used this argument but Pascal comes to mind).

I haven't been following the thread at all so this might have been answered earlier.
 
veteran said:
But man's expanding discovery of the universe and the things in it does not mean the universe itself is expanding or creating itself, changing maybe, but not actually creating. It's man's comprehension and methods of seeing it that's expanding.

The empirical law of physics that material matter of the universe cannot be created nor destroyed has never been defeated.

The Hebrews 11:3 and Romans 1:19-20 verses are talking about facts involving the existence of the material universe, i.e., material matter with "things made". The spiritual part in those verses is about the existence of the invisible things of God behind the creation of the material universe.

With all theories of evolution, the point of origin of material matter is where evolutionists have to stop, because their evolution theory can't support the idea of something coming from nothing. Even our basic logic has a hard time considering that something can come from nothing.

But by their failure to even consider the point of origin of material matter, that is like admitting the probability of a Creator, but just refusing to admit that probability. For one to make the leap and say, "Yeah, the existence of the material universe does reveal evidence it didn't create itself, and something else different than matter had to be involved," that doesn't require Faith. What requires Faith is admitting that The Invisible God is The One behind its creation.

wow. yeah, I agree to that. couldn't have explained it better myself.
Like I said, it is plain common sense, but the step of faith one takes is to believe that the Creator is indeed someone very personal and loving.
 
Free said:
.

So, given that "Such hypotheses are not considered proper scientific conjectures unless they give testable predictions," and that "This would equally apply to claims that YHWH created the Universe," how does the theory of the Big Bang fit into it? Is there any actual difference between positing Big Bang theory or arguing to a Creator? Both positions believe that time began at "that moment," that space-time is a property of the Universe.

The only difference that I could see would be if you applied Occam's razor. Positing a Creator would add one more entity, but it violates no logical rule that I know.

Free said:
.
The problem is that the Big Bang just happened and in and of itself cannot explain "why there is something rather than nothing" (I don't recall who first used this argument but Pascal comes to mind).
I think the question of why there is anything is unresolved, and perhaps unresolvable. Saying God created it begs the question, 'Who created God?"
 
Does everything have to have a beginning?

Can infinity be applied to the past as well as the future?
We think in time. Therefore the idea of infinity is cumbersome to say the least.
Anyway,
Can it be said then that time as we know it had no beginning yet it exists? And if time had a beginning then how can infinity be applied to the past?

When did infinity begin and who created it?

"infinity begin"
:confused
 
If we know infinity has no beginning then why must we apply a limit to God?
 
It's impossible to imagine the knowledge possessed by an intelligence far greater than ours since we don't possess that far greater knowledge. Can a Chimpanzee imagine human abstract thought?
We attempt to imagine or believe the purpose of all things, The Creation, but without possession of the full knowledge of the Creator we can only define that purpose by what is seen or written. And that only vaguely, tantalizingly.
 
Physicist said:
I think the question of why there is anything is unresolved, and perhaps unresolvable. Saying God created it begs the question, 'Who created God?"

I am surprised at you accusing theists of begging the question when your question seems a perfect example of a tautology. God has no beginning, and is uncreated, or he would not be the creator God.

By the way, by your statement I assume that you believe the laws of logic are truth. Are the laws of logic also non-material?
 
Postulating the existence of anything else, god(s), space aliens from another dimension etc to be the creators of the Universe violates Occam's razor. We might as well simply conclude that the Universe exists, as it has for all time (remember, time is a 'property' of the Universe, so there is no time when it did not exist)

Logic is a set of man-made rules that we use to help us understand the Universe. There are different logic systems, by the way, some more useful than others.
 
Physicist said:
Postulating the existence of anything else, god(s), space aliens from another dimension etc to be the creators of the Universe violates Occam's razor. We might as well simply conclude that the Universe exists, as it has for all time (remember, time is a 'property' of the Universe, so there is no time when it did not exist)
About Occam's razor: I really do not think that principle clearly works against the theist position. Yes, to introduce a "creator god", at one level, adds complexity that might not seem necessary. But the theist can respond with a plausibilty argument to the effect that while a "creator god" is indeed an "extra piece", the effect of adding this piece otherwise brings about a substantial reduction in the complexity of the overall model of the world that we seek to generate.

In short, just because a "creator god" is an "extra piece", we should not ignore the possibilty that there are ways in which the "god" piece simplifies the overall model, in ways not specifically related to the role of that "god" as creator.
 
Physicist said:
....
Logic is a set of man-made rules that we use to help us understand the Universe. There are different logic systems, by the way, some more useful than others.
Drew spoke of Occam's razor. But I want to address the 2nd part.

What different man made systems of logic are you talking about? And what rules of logic would be used to create these man made rules of logic you refer to?

Also, whatever logic system you are talking about, is it material or immaterial?
 
Re Occam's razor: Let me illustrate with a ridiculously exaggerated example. Suppose we started to observe that every person who got hit by lightning was also a chronic adulterer. I certainly do not believe this is actually the case, but imagine that it was.

One could, perhaps, rework the laws of physics, without appealing to any kind of "god" construct, to explain why chronic adulterers are the only ones who get hit be lightning.

Or, one could postulate the existence of an invisible being who, for whatever reasons, chooses to zap adulters.

Now, it is not at all clear to me that the second model is not, in a global sense, "simpler".
 
Drew said:
Re Occam's razor: Let me illustrate with a ridiculously exaggerated example. Suppose we started to observe that every person who got hit by lightning was also a chronic adulterer. I certainly do not believe this is actually the case, but imagine that it was.

One could, perhaps, rework the laws of physics, without appealing to any kind of "god" construct, to explain why chronic adulterers are the only ones who get hit be lightning.

Or, one could postulate the existence of an invisible being who, for whatever reasons, chooses to zap adulters.

Now, it is not at all clear to me that the second model is not, in a global sense, "simpler".

I am not sure I agree with you, even in this example. I could, for example, postulate that adultery causes an electrical imbalance in the adulterer that attracts lightning. Or, I could postulate a mad scientist who developed a machine to punish adulterers or space aliens conducting a social science experiment. While all of these would be a stretch, at least they would be consistent with our understanding of the physical world. Now, if I postulate an angry god, I have to really do a stretch. Where does this god live? Why does he wish to punish human adulterers but not promiscuous chimpanzees? What substance is he made from and how does it interact with the physical world to cause lightning bolts? Major revision of our physical understanding. I think I would go with the electrical imbalance by Occam's razor.

Interesting hypothetical example, though :)
 
Drew said:
In short, just because a "creator god" is an "extra piece", we should not ignore the possibility that there are ways in which the "god" piece simplifies the overall model, in ways not specifically related to the role of that "god" as creator.

It seems to me that the creator god would have to be incredibly more complex than the creation it explains. To use the "intelligent" design analogy, have you ever seen a human who wasn't incredibly more complex than the watch she designed? Thus, it seems to me that postulating the existence of a creator god necessarily increases the overall complexity beyond just postulating the "extra piece".

Drew said:
Suppose we started to observe that every person who got hit by lightning was also a chronic adulterer...One could, perhaps, rework the laws of physics, without appealing to any kind of "god" construct, to explain why chronic adulterers are the only ones who get hit be lightning. Or, one could postulate the existence of an invisible being who, for whatever reasons, chooses to zap adulters.

Now, it is not at all clear to me that the second model is not, in a global sense, "simpler".

In addition to having to postulate the existence of the invisible being, said being would have to be incredibly complex: it would have to be able to magically identify adulterers and it would have to be able to magically manipulate global weather patterns, creating regional disparities in electric charge between atmospheric elements and the earth's surface so that lightening bolts of its specific, desired strength would strike at its specific, desired locations.

Please show me how overall complexity can be reduced by the existence of such an incredibly complex magical being so I can better understand your assertion.

Most importantly, given the millennia long unbroken historical record of the replacement of mankind's superstitious and religious explanations of his ignorance with real knowledge, why would anyone believe in such a magical being like the one you postulate without any actual evidence of its existence?
 
Physicist said:
Postulating the existence of anything else, god(s), space aliens from another dimension etc to be the creators of the Universe violates Occam's razor. We might as well simply conclude that the Universe exists, as it has for all time (remember, time is a 'property' of the Universe, so there is no time when it did not exist).

I wouldn't exclude space aliens from another dimension or other supernatural entities as important explanations for the existence of the universe on the basis of Occam's razor.

I have no good reason to believe that Occam's razor applies to this particular question. It certainly does not always apply in the real world.

I just wouldn't bother entertaining the possibility of space aliens from another dimension or other supernatural entities as important explanations for the existence of the universe until there was some good evidence of the existence of these entities or some reliable way to detect them.

As for explanations for the existence of the universe, I think we just have to be humble and recognize our ignorance, but it sure is great that there are curious, creative, industrious, intelligent people rising to the challenge of trying to figure it out. My hat's off to them. I have no particular respect for the armchair philosopher or theologian who defends, without any evidence and without any effort to find real evidence, that a magic being must be the explanation.
 
francisdesales said:
Empirical science cannot prove the existence of God, since empirical science deals with things that are measurable and God is beyond measure.

This doesn't mean we cannot know that God exists, just simply that we turn to other forms of human knowledge for God's existence. Science is not the only way we can come to know something.

francisdesales,

Could you please amplify on these routes to, or methods of, acquiring knowledge that are you referring to and demonstrate how they provide us with knowledge of the existence of the Christian god? Your reference to science has been specific enough to call it "empiric science" and to mention measurements as a part of science. Can you be equally or more specific in describing these other routes to knowledge of the Christian god?
 
Back
Top