Does science prove gods existence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tadtomczyk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tadtomczyk

Guest
Help! I’m on the VERGE of losing my faith. I try to look for evidence through philosphy and science but only come up with more questions! The string theory for example, seems like it replaces god! Is it logical to believe god exists!? I’ve looked up EVERY SINGLE PAGE! Please help me!
 
Everyone I think has their own interpretation on the existence of God,
I found God , not by reading books on Science or Astronomy or nano partical,
But by looking inwards , to myself, what makes me think the way I do ?
By finding things in the Bible that relates to the way I think, and interact with the world…
I found God in the simple things, I was wasting my time looking in all the wrong places,
God is within yourself,by discovering yourself, you discover God
 
Albert Eintstein said that the more he learnt science, the more he believed in [one] God.[of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob].

Many scientists are theists.
 
I don’t think arguments for God should be based on natural science but on philosophy (which is something one must do before doing any science anyway). The cosmological argument is the most compelling argument for God, and it is introduced and defended here:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/cosmological-argument-roundup.html

There are many others, such as the Moral argument (well formulated by Cardinal Newman in his sermons and and C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity IMO) and the argument from desire that Peter Kreeft has defended here: peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm.

As professors Kreeft, Lewis and Feser would probably argue, and as Cardinal Newman would argue, arguments like the argument from design based on the fine tuning of the universe for life (or irreducible complexity in biological phenomena or whatever) seem to perpetuate the idea of a God of the gaps who hides behind gaps in scientific knowledge instead of a sustaining cause of the universe in whom we live and move and have our being and who is the voice of conscience we are already acquainted with, and who is the true object of our deepest desires.

Don’t forget to pray to God, he’s here whether you are able to rationally demonstrate right now or not.
 
Estevao said:
As professors Kreeft, Lewis and Feser would probably argue, and as Cardinal Newman would argue, arguments like the argument from design based on the fine tuning of the universe for life (or irreducible complexity in biological phenomena or whatever) seem to perpetuate the idea of a God of the gaps who hides behind gaps in scientific knowledge instead of a sustaining cause of the universe in whom we live and move and have our being and who is the voice of conscience we are already acquainted with, and who is the true object of our deepest desires.
Click to expand...
I agree on the argument from irreducible complexity in biological design, which as a biochemist I reject – I am a die-hard evolutionist, except of course when it comes to the human soul which, as an immaterial entity, cannot arise by a material process like evolution but must be a special creation by God. However, I strongly disagree on the fine-tuning argument regarding the laws of nature themselves which, precisely only because their are so extraordinarily special, make evolution (physical, chemical, biological) possible in the first place. I know that Feser has argued along the lines of it being a God-of-the-Gaps argument, but I am afraid he has not quite understood the argument. I have written an extensive article on the fine-tuning argument,

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

in which, in a systematic manner, I show that none of the naturalistic arguments work, and I also show why, contrary to the biological design argument, this cosmic design argument is not a God-of-the-Gaps argument (section 1.5). I do think that science speaks strongly in favor of the existence of God. I also argue in the article (section 2) why a naturalistic origin of the universe contradicts what we know about matter and energy from science, which also points to an immaterial God as creator.

I do agree with Feser and you on the merits of the classical philosophical arguments, and in fact I am a great fan of Feser’s writings on the topic.
 
Tadtomczyk said:
Help! I’m on the VERGE of losing my faith. I try to look for evidence through philosphy and science but only come up with more questions! The string theory for example, seems like it replaces god! Is it logical to believe god exists!? I’ve looked up EVERY SINGLE PAGE! Please help me!
Click to expand...
I am a scientist myself, a biochemist, and you can ask me any questions you want. I would strongly recommend, besides studying the classical philosophical arguments for the existence of God (hint: atheists usually have no clue about them), to read my above article and also physicist Stephen Barr’s excellent book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (available at Amazon) where he also points out the superficiality of the idea that the naturalistic worldview has been vindicated by science, and he argues persuasively why precisely the opposite is true.

As for string theory, I have never thought much of it because, after 40 years, there is still not a single iota of observational scientific evidence for it (the lack of evidence from even the new Large Hadron Collider is especially worrisome for string theory), and after having read the book The Trouble with Physics (available at Amazon) by Lee Smolin who himself is a distinguished physicist and once was a fan of the theory, I have come to believe string theory is bunk. But even if it were not, it would in no way replace God. We can discuss this if you want.

I would also suggest that you read my websites:

How can a scientist believe in God?

“Naturalism is true”: A self-contradictory statement

After intense encounter with atheism/naturalism over several years through books and extensive discussions with atheists I have to say that I have been left utterly unimpressed, see also my recent post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12407223&postcount=32
 
The debate rages…and what else would we expect? As some scientist or other said, the universe is a put-up job. We rational beings are meant to accept the gift of faith and employ it. In a universe of certainty, faith would not exist. Instead, we live in a universe where nothing about God can be demonstrated with certainty…does this strike anyone else as odd?

Everything in this universe is merely tantalizing, and I suspect it always will be. This leaves room for faith, which I suspect is the whole point of the thing.
 
If it helps, science can’t disprove God either. There is plenty of room for both.
 
Yago said:
Albert Eintstein said that the more he learnt science, the more he believed in [one] God.[of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob].

Many scientists are theists.
Click to expand...
This is a myth that even Einstein was aware of;
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. *
  • Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man’s own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world. *
  • Albert Einstein, quoted in: 2000 Years of Disbelief, James Haught
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…

Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm
 
Science does not prove the existence of God. But science does offer some pointers to the existence of God.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Book of Genesis: Centuries before Christ: “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

If you are on the verge of losing your faith because of string theory, I have to wonder how much faith you have to lose. Scientism (the belief that only science counts as a path to truth) is an arrogant and wicked philosophy. We should respect and value highly good science, for it too can lead us to God,

“True science to an ever-increasing degree discovers God as though God were waiting behind each closed door opened by science.” Pope Pius XII
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Science does not prove the existence of God. But science does offer some pointers to the existence of God.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
Click to expand...
“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by ‘God,’ one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”

Carl Sagan
 
987mk said:
“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous.”

Carl Sagan
Click to expand...
Yeah well, guess what, most informed believers would agree with Sagan! But like most atheists Sagan was philosophically ignorant and had no clue about the classical philosophical concept of God which, by the way, is also the basis for Catholic theology about the essence of God. Feser explains in his article:

Why Is There Anything At All? It’s Simple
 
987mk said:
“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by ‘God,’ one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”

Carl Sagan
Click to expand...
There is no such depiction of God in the Bible. 🤷

Yet in his description of the Big Bang,Sagan apparently unwittingly described the Big Bang as an event consistent with Genesis.

“Let there be light.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top