Scientific argument for God's existence

[Beryllos]

It seems to me that the crux of this argument relies upon the ‘laws of physics’ being prescriptive, rather than descriptive.

This is my objection to the OP’s argument as well. Humans use mathematics and have found equations that describe nature. This doesn’t mean that nature has any use for mathematics and equations, or that nature is built upon mathematics.

A hydrogen atom does not use the Schroedinger Equation. If it could speak, it could say no more than “I am what I am.” A comet in orbit around the sun knows nothing about gravity. If it could think, it would think it’s just sitting there, wherever it happens to be, just like me as I sit here at my computer.

That’s not to say we can’t discern order and beauty in nature. Indeed, these strengthen my faith in God. (I am a scientist too.)

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

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.

There are plenty of atheists who would disagree on this. Many are not anti-realist when it comes to mathematics.

 

[Wesrock]

lelinator:

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?

Maybe I’ll do so after you respond to the rest of my post which explained the difference.

 

[AlNg]

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.

God would know these properties whether or not they were measured. That is the contradiction.

 

[rossum]

Who is Vishnu ?

Read the Bhagavad Gita, particularly chapter eleven.

 

[lelinator]

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.

But it’s relative.

Two contradictory versions of reality can exist at the same time, quantum experiment shows | The Independent | The Independent

 

[rossum]

I think, the question is do these mathematical truths exist independently.

No they do not. All mathematical truths are relative truths – relative to the applicable set of axioms.

• 1 + 1 = 0 (arithmetic MOD 2)
• 1 + 1 = 1 (symbolic logic: true OR true = true)
• 1 + 1 = 11 (base 1 numbers)
• 1 + 1 = 10 (base 2 numbers)
• 1 + 1 = 2 (base 3 or higher numbers)

All those statements are true within the given set of axioms.

 

[Economist]

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?

Of course.

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.

Because we chose those axioms which can be used to describe the reality so well. But we could chose other axioms, which might be useful for other endeavors. In “normal” mathematics there is concept of commutativity - namely that ab = ba, and it quite useful. But in vector algebra, which is a generalization of scalar algebra, it is not true that ab = ba. And it is very useful, too.

 

[Economist]

There are plenty of atheists who would disagree on this. Many are not anti-realist when it comes to mathematics.

So what???

 

[IWantGod]

All mathematical truths are relative truths – relative to the applicable set of axioms.

• 1 + 1 = 0 (arithmetic MOD 2)
• 1 + 1 = 1 (symbolic logic: true OR true = true)
• 1 + 1 = 11 (base 1 numbers)
• 1 + 1 = 10 (base 2 numbers)
• 1 + 1 = 2 (base 3 or higher numbers)

All those statements are true within the given set of axioms.

This doesn’t prove to me that all axioms are made-up or imaginary.

For example the idea that 1 + 1= 2, is not in my mind made up at all. It’s based on the idea of an irreducible number being added to and follows logically and necessarily. 2 irreducible points equals 2.

That’s not imagined, that is discovered. Otherwise all conclusions would be arbitrary too.

 

[IWantGod]

So what???

You could be wrong, that’s so what. So there is no point in just asserting something to be true without demonstration.

 

[IWantGod]

Because we chose those axioms which can be used to describe the reality so well. But we could chose other axioms, which might be useful for other endeavors. In “normal” mathematics there is concept of commutativity - namely that a b = b a, and it quite useful. But in vector algebra, which is a generalization of scalar algebra, it is not true that a b = b a. And it is very useful, too.

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.

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

I think, the question is do these mathematical truths exist independently.

No they do not. All mathematical truths are relative truths – relative to the applicable set of axioms.

• 1 + 1 = 0 (arithmetic MOD 2)
• 1 + 1 = 1 (symbolic logic: true OR true = true)
• 1 + 1 = 11 (base 1 numbers)
• 1 + 1 = 10 (base 2 numbers)
• 1 + 1 = 2 (base 3 or higher numbers)

All those statements are true within the given set of axioms.

That doesn’t really refute the point. That’s just notation and language differences which refer to the abstract truths.

 

[Bradskii]

Hi everybody,!

First of all, I would like to say that I belive that faith is a gift.

However, 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 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.

Mathematical models aren’t abstract concepts. We simply use mathematical symbols to represent reality. They describe reality. If you have one rock and we add another then we have invented symbols that we can use in an equation that does nothing else but describe that reality. As in one plus one equals two.

You could use any symbols and design any equation that reflects that. It’s like using the temperature 0 degrees C to describe something’s temperature. That temperature is not an abstract concept. It defines something very specific.

Sometimes the object being described is a little more esoteric than a rock. But that doesn’t change the concept.

 

[IWantGod]

You could use any symbols and design any equation that reflects that.

It’s not the symbols that are interesting. Obviously the symbols in a book doesn’t mean that the story which those symbols represent are actually real events. What is interesting is that it remains true that 2 irreducible objects + another 2 irreducible objects equals 4 even if those objects don’t exist in the universe or even if we are not imagining them. It is an independent truth insomuch as it is true independently of events.

 

[EndTimes]

With respect to God - Jesus always pleads for Faith as being the Key to God’s Holy Spirit

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You could use any symbols and design any equation that reflects that.

It’s not the symbols that are interesting. Obviously the symbols in a book doesn’t mean that the story which those symbols represent are actually real events. What is interesting is that it remains true that 2 irreducible objects + another 2 irreducible objects equals 4 even if those objects don’t exist in the universe or even if we are not imagining them. It is an independent truth insomuch as it is true independently of events.

I agree. But the premise that one plus one equals two is conditional on there actually being two ‘somethings’ that can be counted. It is true when there are those two somethings and it would be true if those somethings were to exist (but currently don’t).

The figures map reality. They only describe it. You can’t describe something if it doesn’t exist or unless you offer a proposition - ‘if such and such conditions apply then one plus one etc’.

 

[IWantGod]

I agree. But the premise that one plus one equals two is conditional on there actually being two ‘somethings’ that can be counted. It is true when there are those two somethings and it would be true if those somethings were to exist (but currently don’t).

If you’re correct then truth doesn’t exist. What follows necessarily is always true, not just true when we recognise it in some observable object.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I agree. But the premise that one plus one equals two is conditional on there actually being two ‘somethings’ that can be counted. It is true when there are those two somethings and it would be true if those somethings were to exist (but currently don’t).

If you’re correct then truth doesn’t exist. What follows necessarily is always true, not just true when we recognise it in some observable object.

There’s no ‘what follows’. If something is red and we describe it as red, the one doesn’t follow from the other. If there is nothing that is red then red doesn’t exist. If there are not two objects there is no way of writing down that two exists. Unless you propose that fact.

Maths maps reality. It’s just a description.

 

[IWantGod]

If something is red and we describe it as red, the one doesn’t follow from the other. If there is nothing that is red then red doesn’t exist.

That is not the same thing. The concept of red doesn’t necessitate red things. 4 Irreducible objects together necessarily equal 4 and it is always true whether we think of it or not or whether there is any such objects or not, because it’s necessary. Otherwise all truth is conditional and therefore no truth at all.