Scientific argument for God's existence

[IWantGod]

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 like the argument. But i am not sure of it.

I think, the question is do these mathematical truths exist independently. Can i arrive at a truth about nature indirectly through the use of mathematics? I think if that were possible then you would have abstract truths that standalone, and are not just a way of describing something. I think on that basis you can infer a transcendent mind.

 

[IWantGod]

If the maths is a model we use to describe nature, is it impossible to conceive of a nature without minds to do the describing?

But why does mathematics works so well? Is it impossible to conceive of mathematical truths existing without human minds to observe it?

 

[lelinator]

But Quantum mechanics, “which has been confirmed by millions of experimental data and is the basis of all modern technological progress.” says that God cannot know both the exact position and the exact momentum of a particle at the same time. The more accurate He knows the position of the particle, the more uncertain is He of its momentum.

What HUP actually says is that you can’t predict the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.

Which is rather obvious, because to know the momentum of a particle you have to know its position. The more accurately you wish to know the momentum, the more accurately you must know the position.

 

[lelinator]

If the maths is a model we use to describe nature, is it impossible to conceive of a nature without minds to do the describing?

But now you’re stuck in a Catch-22 situation. Because it’s impossible to conceive of a mind that’s not ordered, and order is by its very nature describable by mathematics. So the mind couldn’t have created mathematics, because it can’t exist without mathematics.

 

[IWantGod]

Scientific argument for God’s existence

There are no scientific proofs of God’s existence.

Welcome to the forums

 

[IWantGod]

Vishnu’s existence.

Vishnu would have to be the ultimate-reality/uncaused-cause in-order for that to be true. The reason being is that there has to be an eternal truth by which all other truth’s are true, and since truth is the fundamental expression of existence, that means there has to be an ultimate eternal being in-order for there to be such a thing as truth, otherwise there is no reason for anything to be true. Being is truth.

Who is Vishnu?

 

[Mmarco]

You wrote: " think, the question is do these mathematical truths exist independently. Can i arrive at a truth about nature indirectly through the use of mathematics?."

If I understand your meaning, you are considering the hypothesis that our mathematical models do not describe the REAL structure of reality, but nevertheless, they work. Well, in this case I would consider all our scientific and technological progress an unbelievably lucky series of coincidences. Is this reasonable?

I would like to clarify that I never meant to give an “absolute” proof of God’s existence, but only to give a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges (this is why I called it a scientific argument; in science there is no absolute proof ) Of course, you can always claim that everything is a coincidence and therefore reject any scientific evidence.

 

[IWantGod]

Of course, you can always claim that everything is a coincidence and therefore reject any scientific evidence.

It’s not scientific evidence that you are arguing for. The idea that abstract truths exist independently of physical reality (that they are truths regardless of whether our universe existed or not) as such that mathematical truth is the template that physical reality is potentially realizing as it comes into being, is a metaphysical argument or idea.

The question of whether mathematics legitimately relates to physical reality or how it relates through the scientific method is a meta-scientific question.

 

[Mmarco]

My point is that "abstract truths " cannot exist without a thinking mind because they are astract and therefore conceptual. This mind can be a human mind or God’s mind.
An abstract concept can certainly exist independently of physical reality; for example we can imagine many mathematical models which have no correspondence with the physical reality.

 

[IWantGod]

My point is that "abstract truths " cannot exist without a thinking mind

I agree.

This mind can be a human mind or God’s mind.

True.

An abstract concept can certainly exist independently of physical reality

And i suppose that this is the object of this debate. What is the nature of mathematical concepts, and do they continue to be true when no human is around to think them. If they do, then this is certainly a great starting point for arguing the existence of an eternal mind (or God) from which and in which these things are true.

 

[Economist]

What is the nature of mathematical concepts, and do they continue to be true when no human is around to think them.

There are no mathematical “truths” independently from the chosen axioms. We are free to create axioms, and rules of transformation. A proposition is true in that axiomatic system, if it can be reduced to the axioms.

 

[Mmarco]

You wrote: “What is the nature of mathematical concepts, and do they continue to be true when no human is around to think them”

My answer is: NO, because of their abstract and conceptual nature; as I wrote before, my point is that abstract truths=concepts cannot exist without a thinking mind. This means to me that they exist only in the very moment a mind is thinking of them and stop existing when no minds are thinking of them. This is to me a very evident and obvious truth.

 

[Mmarco]

I agree that there are no mathematical truths independently from the chosen axioms. And since the choice of axioms is arbitrary, and arbitrariness implies a conscious and intelligent mind with the capacity to make a choice, no mathematical models can exist when no minds are thinking of them.

 

[IWantGod]

There are no mathematical “truths” independently from the chosen axioms

You make it seem as if mathematical truth (or rather the starting principles by which we arrive at a conclusion in mathematics) is completely arbitrary. Is this your position?

If it is, then how do you explain why mathematics is so successful at describing physical reality, as such that it has been said to be the language of the universe? Surely that is not arbitrary. Surely the implication is that such a language on some level is objective, something discovered rather than imagined.

 

[Zach]

How about an argument for God because no human can understand quantum mechanics. At least according to Richard Feynman’s quote about if you think you understand quantum mechanics you don’t understand quantum mechanics.

 

[AlNg]

What HUP actually says is that you can’t predict the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, physical systems do not have definite properties before being measured. This is an obvious contradiction to the fact that God knows everything.An omniscient God would know all the definite properties of a system before it was measured.

QM makes no reference to the knowledge of God.

quantum mechanics does not even mention God

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.

The laws of physics describe nature in terms of quarks, quantum fields, bosons, etc.;

You say that you have an argument for the existence of God because of “mathematical representability of the natural laws.” and you mention quantum fields.
In any case an all knowing God exists or not. An all knowing God would know the properties of any physical system, whether they are measured or not. But the commonly taught Copenhagen interpretation of QM says that
physical systems do not have physical properties before being measured.

You’re being absurd.

Can you show that the commonly taught interpretation of QM does not contradict the omniscience of God?

 

[lelinator]

This is an obvious contradiction to the fact that God knows everything.An omniscient God would know all the definite properties of a system before it was measured.

No, it’s not a contradiction if God is outside of time, because it would mean that from God’s perspective there’s no such thing as “before” it was measured.

 

[IWantGod]

How about an argument for God because no human can understand quantum mechanics. At least according to Richard Feynman’s quote about if you think you understand quantum mechanics you don’t understand quantum mechanics.

My favourite argument use to be (many years ago) the idea that you need God in-order to collapse the first wave function.

Since i no-longer seek proof for God in science, i have moved on from such arguments.

 

[ForeverLearn]

Why do you think this means there is one God? Why not a thousand? Or one God that creates a new one before going out of existence, forever? Or a God that existed only for a millisecond? Or a God who other than creating things has no knowledge or power? Or an evil god (that would explain a few things)? Or Zeus?

This is along the lines of what I was going to write. Even though I disagree with the OP’s claim of proving there must be an intelligent creator, assuming I accepted it just for conversation, it still leaves all the attributes commonly associated with said creator to question.

 

[Zach]

Yes just because our puny minds can’t completely grasp it doesn’t mean an all knowing God couldn’t.