"scientific logic" can prove the existence of god

[polytropos]

To try to understand God using science is impossible, and the logic in that is that we have no need to do so. God is not fiction, He is 100% truth.

To understand God fully through any means is impossible. Science can help.

And about God. Can you, or anyone, make a tree? Or a fish, or a human being? Guess not. So who can? God can. Hence it is logical to say that God do exist because that is most likely answer.

The existence of God is not self-evident. You also underestimate the cultural forces that lead many to doubt. Many have been educated that the universe could exist without God. You, as a Catholic, see that it could not exist without God and see that everything must have been God’s creation. But you are not really giving the skeptic (or even the person who was raised with no background in Christianity) much of a reason to choose Christianity rather than something else. This is why the Church insists that God’s existence can be known through reason. Not fully - but God cannot be known fully by any means, anyway.

These are also not the reasons to believe in God’s existence. This is the attitude that leads people to believe that science undermines religion when it does not. Humans may someday be able to synthesize a fish or some other life - and if they do it will not be problematic for God’s existence.

But we don’t need to prove that God exsist. The need to not is called faith. All we see don’t need to be scrutinized, all we must do is to believe. And just because you don’t believe, as I have gathered from your post, we who have faith has the right to it. If it is twaddle for you that is your problem, not mine. And if we need evidence, well, we have The Bible even though it is a book of nonsense for you.

You perhaps do not need to prove that God exists, but you believe already. It is enough to believe and practice for some - but others will have trouble believing if they feel as though they are going against reason. How does one choose Catholicism in today’s hyperpluralistic world? “Just believe”? No. As the Church teaches, Faith is guided by reason. Faith is a gift from God but is difficult to receive outside of Catholic practice. So what about those who are not currently practicing? They use reason to deduce that they must submit to the Church’s magisterium.

The Bible is also insufficient evidence (cf. Protestant Reformation).

Linux also did not state whether he/she believes or not and certainly did not call the Bible nonsense.

 

[Lasting_faith]

To understand God fully through any means is impossible. Science can help.

The existence of God is not self-evident. You also underestimate the cultural forces that lead many to doubt. Many have been educated that the universe could exist without God. You, as a Catholic, see that it could not exist without God and see that everything must have been God’s creation. But you are not really giving the skeptic (or even the person who was raised with no background in Christianity) much of a reason to choose Christianity rather than something else. This is why the Church insists that God’s existence can be known through reason. Not fully - but God cannot be known fully by any means, anyway.

These are also not the reasons to believe in God’s existence. This is the attitude that leads people to believe that science undermines religion when it does not. Humans may someday be able to synthesize a fish or some other life - and if they do it will not be problematic for God’s existence.

You perhaps do not need to prove that God exists, but you believe already. It is enough to believe and practice for some - but others will have trouble believing if they feel as though they are going against reason. How does one choose Catholicism in today’s hyperpluralistic world? “Just believe”? No. As the Church teaches, Faith is guided by reason. Faith is a gift from God but is difficult to receive outside of Catholic practice. So what about those who are not currently practicing? They use reason to deduce that they must submit to the Church’s magisterium.

The Bible is also insufficient evidence (cf. Protestant Reformation).

Linux also did not state whether he/she believes or not and certainly did not call the Bible nonsense.

Why should we have a need to by science prove that God exsist when we know He does? What is the need to prove a thing that is sure and true being sure and true? I see no need to it. If we have faith that is what we need, nothing more, nothing less.

And The Bible is not insufficient evidence. The Bible has a very accurate “time-line” that tie it, thru persons we can prove, has exsist along with the history of the time B.C and after the birth of Christ. By knowing history we can, without doubt, say that all in The Bible is true. Do you really believe it is possible to keep on lying for, if we leave The Old Testament out, close to two thousand year?

One with faith does not need evidence, one without faith are constantly seek for a) a proof that there is no God, b) that there is. (Often hoping there is not.) It is up to us to convince that God exsist.

And you are right. I do not need evidence, by the grace of God. You do not start to believe because you read an article in a magazine. You start to believe because God give you faith. My faith is 53 years old, I had it the day I was born. I have never have any doubt. God has not always give me what I ask for, but that is how it should be, IMHO. I knew God before I knew there are something people call God. I was born with faith. And that should be evidence enough to anyone with doubts.

And Linux, I am sorry if I offended you writing that you maybe think The Bible is a book full on nonsens. However I can not understand how someone who have read The Bible, as I understand you have, still don’t believe but ask for evidence after evidence, when it is not needed.

 

[Linux]

Actually, my friend, I am 100% Catholic.

You reject a key Catholic Dogma, so I don’t know what you mean by that. Perhaps you are 99 percent Catholic.

To try to understand God using science is impossible,

I never said anything about science proving God.

and the logic in that is that we have no need to do so.

Not with science. But I don’t see why you think that you don’t need to give a rational account of what you think is true.

God is not fiction, He is 100% truth.

Why should anyone believe that without rational grounds; everybody says their religion is true.

I also understand your way of thinking, to put is short, “what I don’t understand must be false and a huge lie”.

Clearly you don’t since I never said that “what I don’t understand must be false and a huge lie”.

You don’t seem to know that word well enough for a debate, I would like to add.

You don’t seem to know one of the core teachings of the catholic faith.

And about God. Can you, or anyone, make a tree? Or a fish, or a human being? Guess not. So who can? God can. Hence it is logical to say that God do exist because that is most likely answer.

The fact that I can’t do something is not a rational basis to conclude that God did it.

But we don’t need to prove that God exsist. The need to not is called faith. All we see don’t need to be scrutinized, all we must do is to believe. And just because you don’t believe, as I have gathered from your post, we who have faith has the right to it. If it is twaddle for you that is your problem, not mine. And if we need evidence, well, we have The Bible even though it is a book of nonsense for you.

I don’t need to prove that the Hindu God’s exist. The need to not is called Hindu faith. All we see don’t need to be scrutinized, all we must do is to believe. And just because you don’t believe, as I have gathered from your post, we who have the Hindu faith has the right to it. If it is twaddle for you that is your problem, not mine. And if we need evidence, well, we have The Hindu Scriptures even though it is a book of nonsense for you.

 

[Micosil]

I am not particularly sure what is meant with “scientific logic”, but good, solid philosophical arguments for the existence of God have existed since the time of St. Thomas Aquinas - check out his Summa Theologica.

The way science works is through methodological naturalism, no intervention from a supernatural realm is assumed in everyday scientific occurances, so science per se can’t be used to prove God; however, its discoveries, the fact that natural laws exist at all may hint at something greater, perhaps with intelligence. Hinting at, or suggesting, however, are not definite proofs.

 

[Aloysium]

Not everything proposed by science today will stand the test of time. Even what remains will change in accordance with more sophisticated understandings. Science reveals truths concerning the natural order and should always be integrated within the whole of human knowledge. It is not science’s mandate to prove or disprove God; it does reveal the mysteries of creation and definitely has a role to play in glorifying Him. As to how one would know more about Him, I would recommend, as one offers everything else of oneself to Him, surrender your mind/thoughts; then ask a question, and you will be answered.

 

[polytropos]

Why should we have a need to by science prove that God exsist when we know He does? What is the need to prove a thing that is sure and true being sure and true? I see no need to it. If we have faith that is what we need, nothing more, nothing less.

Not everyone knows that God exists. It is not self-evident.

And The Bible is not insufficient evidence. The Bible has a very accurate “time-line” that tie it, thru persons we can prove, has exsist along with the history of the time B.C and after the birth of Christ. By knowing history we can, without doubt, say that all in The Bible is true. Do you really believe it is possible to keep on lying for, if we leave The Old Testament out, close to two thousand year?

That’s not exactly what I meant. The spiritual reality that the Bible discloses is disputed. Its meaning is not agreed upon, and many people, without the aid of the Catholic Church, would not arrive at belief in God (as believed in by Catholics) if you just handed them a Bible.

The Bible is historical, but again you are underestimating cultural forces that color the interpretations of nonbelievers. Nonbelievers have gone through a school system and have read textbooks that certainly do not affirm events in the Bible. Or perhaps they were raised in a Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. household.

One with faith does not need evidence, one without faith are constantly seek for a) a proof that there is no God, b) that there is. (Often hoping there is not.) It is up to us to convince that God exsist.

Right, one with faith does not need evidence, but those without faith could often use evidence (or assurance that belief is compatible with other domains of human knowledge, like modern science).

And you are right. I do not need evidence, by the grace of God. You do not start to believe because you read an article in a magazine. You start to believe because God give you faith.

This is a rather fideistic attitude. Evidence plays a major role in the faith of many Catholics. You may be an odd case, but the Church teaches that man can come to know God through reason. By reason we can know enough to submit to the Catholic Church, through which God gives us faith.

My faith is 53 years old, I had it the day I was born. I have never have any doubt. God has not always give me what I ask for, but that is how it should be, IMHO. I knew God before I knew there are something people call God. I was born with faith. And that should be evidence enough to anyone with doubts.

You were born with faith… and that should be evidence enough to anyone with doubts? No one else can experience your faith. It is God’s gift to you. Don’t suppose that everyone is born believing in God because you are.

I don’t mean to be combative, but I take issue with this sort of attitude towards faith because I was an atheist for many years. Having that experience, I do not see how your testimony could convince anyone who does not believe to start practicing Catholicism. Faith did not just come to me. I eventually started looking and practicing, and then faith followed. This is not to undermine faith as being subordinate to reason or created by men or anything - but some have to use reason to open up to the Church before receiving faith.

 

[Lasting_faith]

What is more important, to prove God exsist or to prove He don’t?

We are all born with faith because God created us. It is up to us to answer “yes” or “no” when He ask us to follow Him.

 

[Steveabrous]

It’s my understanding that Galileo tried to use his theory to disprove God.

That is not correct. Galileo used his theories to reinturpret scripture in light of them. This is what the church objected to. but no he was a believer.

 

[Lasting_faith]

Not everyone knows that God exists. It is not self-evident.

That’s not exactly what I meant. The spiritual reality that the Bible discloses is disputed. Its meaning is not agreed upon, and many people, without the aid of the Catholic Church, would not arrive at belief in God (as believed in by Catholics) if you just handed them a Bible.

The Bible is historical, but again you are underestimating cultural forces that color the interpretations of nonbelievers. Nonbelievers have gone through a school system and have read textbooks that certainly do not affirm events in the Bible. Or perhaps they were raised in a Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. household.

Right, one with faith does not need evidence, but those without faith could often use evidence (or assurance that belief is compatible with other domains of human knowledge, like modern science).

This is a rather fideistic attitude. Evidence plays a major role in the faith of many Catholics. You may be an odd case, but the Church teaches that man can come to know God through reason. By reason we can know enough to submit to the Catholic Church, through which God gives us faith.

You were born with faith… and that should be evidence enough to anyone with doubts? No one else can experience your faith. It is God’s gift to you. Don’t suppose that everyone is born believing in God because you are.

I don’t mean to be combative, but I take issue with this sort of attitude towards faith because I was an atheist for many years. Having that experience, I do not see how your testimony could convince anyone who does not believe to start practicing Catholicism. Faith did not just come to me. I eventually started looking and practicing, and then faith followed. This is not to undermine faith as being subordinate to reason or created by men or anything - but some have to use reason to open up to the Church before receiving faith.

If we would go out for a walk and I would point toward a stone andsay to you “look, a stone” you would say “oh yes, so it is”, right? If I then would say that it is a stone made by God you would start to search for conclusive evidence, right? Why is so easy to believe it is a stone, but hard to believe it is made by God?

 

[polytropos]

If we would go out for a walk and I would point toward a stone andsay to you “look, a stone” you would say “oh yes, so it is”, right? If I then would say that it is a stone made by God you would start to search for conclusive evidence, right? Why is so easy to believe it is a stone, but hard to believe it is made by God?

It’s not really a matter of what you or I would say. If you point to a stone, a nonbeliever is not going to agree that it is obvious that God made it. There is no advantage to insisting upon the fully theological interpretation to someone who is poised to reject it. You may not like it, but to effectively converse with nonbelievers about faith you have to meet them halfway. Whatever philosophical position they occupy, whether consciously or unconsciously, is likely in some way incompatible with pointing to a stone and saying God made it.

Not to mention, saying that God made a stone is perhaps imprecise in the respect that a nonbeliever is not going to know what you mean. God made everything, but that stone has been effected after God’s creation by a number of natural causes (all of which, of course, were set in motion by God - but that is a philosophical point you would have to prove to someone who does not believe).

Again, the existence of God is not self-evident. You are confident in it because you have faith, but that does not make it self-evident. It is much easier to know that a stone exists because we see the stone and all of its accidents directly. God’s existence is something that we conclude by looking at the world.

 

[Lasting_faith]

I never try convert anyone. That is something I really don’t want to do, but I try to each day, by my example show what it is to be a Christian with faith and practising it. I do not take part in endless debates (as St.Paul did oppose) because they are useless. I am a Christian, I am a Catholic and I am a sinner. Therefore I know what faith is and what weakness is. I fail, we all do, at some point in our life, usually many times. In those cases all we have is our faith and God’s mercy to lean on. In my mind I bless those without faith, or with a weak faith. Sometimes my faith is weak, I am only a human. But when my faith may be weak sometimes I know what to do, namely pray, and harder then before. God will, when He see that the time is right, restore my faith. And I believe that a example how to conduct is worth more then words after words. We all are born with faith, but some don’t hear, or then they neglect, God’s call. But what I, and I recomend this to all others, do not overdo it. Don’t try to be more “holy” then what you may be. Show the “real” you. Also when you are weak. One who always seem to have a strong faith is most likely also faking it to “show of” how good he/she is.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

In order for things to be something rather than nothing, their has to be a logical explanation and their is. It is energy and the evolved forms of it.
Everything in the universes evolved from the most basic form of anything and that is pure energy. This pure energy as a collective whole somehow gained a consciousness in a similar manner represented by the ideology of a collective consciousness. This can explain in scientific terms how atoms could have come to gain a consciousness which is the collective assembly of energy in which retain what consciousness left to us by god in the beginning.

Energy can not be destroyed, it can only be re-directed and stored. This fundamental fact of science PROOVES that energy and in its purest form, in which all things evolved from. Did not have a beginning,as it does not have an end.
We know god gave life to all things and that all things came from god, but this “scientifically” proved fact or law about energy, logically expresses the reasoning of an entity in which is not just immortal, but the first being whom could possibly existed.

I do not believe that i’ve contradicted anything in the bible so far so allow me to continue haha.
The Soul also, can be proven to exist by logic in a similar manner, given that the purest form of energy in which everything evolved from was and is god, this means that the supreme lord god , also continued to evolve in one manner or another, allowing its almighty knowledge to grow along side with its body in which is the universe.
Though the flaw with this in the eyes of an atheist is that how can the universe be created from , a united form of pure energy,god.
This is where things begin to become dangerous territory because theirs many speculations as to how god formed the rest of the universe.
Some say that Almighty god “inverted” itself through transcendence and created the first cycle in which lead to the birth of the universe through the destruction and rebirth and evolution of its body. In a very similer manner to how our lord Jesus sacrificed himself, evovled further and breached the inter-dimensional gap and not only opening the gates of heaven on earth, but projecting his own spirit as an incarnation of god into the heavens.
…

Forgive me for sounding harsh but this has nothing to do with science. This is pure pseudoscience.

There are no “evolved forms” of energy. Energy is not “re-directed and stored”. Classically speaking energy is a property of the state of a system, but somewhat of a contrived one (unlike things you can physically measure like temperature, pressure, volume, etc). You can add or remove energy to/from a system in the form of heat and/or work which are physically measurable things (flows of energy across a system’s boundaries). There are various mathematical constructs that are beneficial in comparing the energy of different states of a system; these have names like “enthalpy” and “Gibbs free energy”. Nothing but mathematical ways of calculating the physical heat & work associated with different ways of getting from point A to point B, or from a slightly different point of view, determining whether two states are in equilibrium with each other. Tied up in this is the concept of “entropy” which is not some mystical thing having to do with randomness or evolution of energy forms, but is rather another mathematical construct that says something about how much heat and work is associated with a particular path from point A to point B, and whether that path is reversible (i.e. can you go from B back to A along the same path, and get equal and opposite amounts of heat and work back out of the system).

In the modern Einsteinian sense energy and mass are related, or every mass has energy associated with it, but the basic properties of energy are essentially as I described above. One shouldn’t read into this anything mystical.

Sorry for the soapbox here, but pseudoscience in the service of religion does not do anyone any favors.

 

[Micosil]

…

Sorry for the soapbox here, but pseudoscience in the service of religion does not do anyone any favors.

Unfortunately, it does favors to atheists who happen to be learned in proper science. When they read pseudoscientific “justifications” like the ones the OP opened with, they think, “Oh, look, these theists, these believers have no idea what science actually says and they make stuff up to justify the existence of their God”.

It only serves to distance them further from debates and discussions, even ones that involve actually good reasons to justify the existence of God.

 

[SurfsUp]

I was an atheist and was trying to make everything make sense via science. I was trying to figure out all the deepest longings of our tragic materialist hearts in detail with all of my physical, biological, historical understanding, when I saw the a picture Sacred Heart.

It was a little disorienting. I would often say that defining Christ was kind of silly. A man comes up to me talking about Jesus, I plead ignorance. Oh to believe in God, you must need to know all about Roman history and the history of Israel, what does it mean to believe anything?

The scientific, secular humanistic idiom is not cut out for replacing religion and philosophy, and you can’t hammer the square peg into the round hole as much as people try. One thing I struggled with was wrapping my head around everything not being essentially pantheistic, intellectually confusing God in His immensity for “nature”(knowing this was wrong but needing to articulate how), and most maddeningly, the difference between the possible and the actual. Reading about metaphysics helped separate the human intellectual enterprise of science from the nature of God. God is the ground of reality, deciding of all in His perfect knowledge and Perfect Will, which of the possible gets to come ex nihilo into existence, but things that are real can be otherwise separate, granted their own essence, not merely figments of the “mind of God”, and God can freely relate to that as an (existentially dependent) Other. Correct me if I’m wrong.

The nature of the Creation, as it would “freely” evolve(though its doomed to boil away according to science and scripture), can be speculated by the enterprise of observation and predictive models. They should stop kidding themselves though: they desperately want to live forever, and they think mans wisdom is the key.