Scientific Evidence of God's Existance

[BornInMarch]

Believing in God requires faith, because you can’t scientifically prove or disprove his existence. Right?

Enter St. Thomas Aquinas and his Quinque viae. For those of you whose education didn’t include the mastery of a dead language, that translates to “Five Proofs”. These are five scientifically-rooted arguments in God’s Existence.

1. The Unmoved Mover:
   An object in motion has to be prompted to motion by something else, and an infinite regress of movers is not possible. Therefore, there must be a mover that was not itself moved: this we call God.
2. The First Cause:
   Some things are caused, but all of those things were caused by something else. As an infinite regress of causation is impossible, there must be a first cause: this we call God.
3. The Contingency:
   Somethings exist but could potentially have not existed, and other things don’t exist but could potentially have existed. These are contingent things. Not everything in The Universe can be contingent, because then going back far enough would lead to a time when nothing existed. But if there was a time when nothing existed, then there would be nothing in existence now because something can’t come from nothing. Therefore there must be a thing that could have existed on its own: this we call God.
4. The Degrees:
   In everything you have ever encountered, there are varying degrees of goodness with some versions of something being better than others. The only way for these not to be arbitrary is if there is an ultimate good at the very end of the spectrum: this we call God.
5. The Telological:
   Every natural body in the universe acts towards an end, despite being unintelligent/inanimate. As moving towards a goal is a sign of intelligence, then it stands to reason that these inanimate bodies are being lead by an intelligent being: this we call God.

Let me know what you think of the Quinque viae. Do you agree? Disagree? Think I butchered St. Aquinas’s works? Let me know.

 

[petra22]

I read these words and am awe-struck… Some of us never get into this deep thought… it is good to read and consider. I’m going to meditate on all five. I especially like
number 1! I have read them before a few years back, but still I had forgotten… Thank you for bringing it to me again. I want to pass it on to everyone I know, especially the ones who think they know it all…

 

[seagal]

These are solid arguments that theologians use even now. In fact Bishop Robert Barron (founder of WordOnFire.org) credits these arguments for putting him on the path to priesthood.
I wouldn’t call them scientific though, they’re philosophical arguments.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

They are argument from logic not science and atheists can argue just as well against them.

Faith is a gift, not a proof.

 

[theropod]

Science has come to mean the physical sciences. The physical sciences only deal with material things. There is no reason to expect the methods that deal only with material things to either prove or disprove immaterial things.