Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Physics Prove the Existence of God?
Magis Center of Reason and Faith ^ | July 23, 2010 | Spitzer, Robert

Posted on 07/20/2010 6:09:03 PM PDT by firerosemom

The last few years have seen several books championing agnosticism or atheism making their way into the popular press. These books leave most informed readers quite baffled, because they ignore the vast majority (if not the entirety) of the considerable evidence for theism provided by physics and philosophy during the last few decades. This evidence is capable of grounding reasonable and responsible belief in a super-intelligent, transcendent, creative power that stands at the origins of our universe or any hypothetically postulated multiverse. The main purpose of this book is to give a brief synopsis of this evidence to readers who are interested in exploring the strongest rational foundation for faith that has come to light in human history.

(Excerpt) Read more at magisreasonfaith.org ...


TOPICS: Religion & Science; Skeptics/Seekers
KEYWORDS: cosmology; creation; faith; notaphysicstopic; notasciencetopic; physics; science; theism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: firerosemom

Quite the opposite. Why is there always attempts to prove that God or an “originator of everything” exists? There is arguably a fallacy or better, a flawed assumption being made in all these so-called attempts that God’s existence needs to be proven. In other words, the attempt to prove the existence of God or an “originator of everything” arguably stems from the belief, premise, or basis that for some reason, 1) God’s existence needs to be proven and/or 2) God does not exist. Why not work from the premise that God or an “originator of everything” does exist; therefore use science or math to disprove such an existence. See where I am coming from here?


41 posted on 07/20/2010 9:35:13 PM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: firerosemom
I teach physics at a Catholic secondary school, and I am interested in Fr. Spitzer's stated goal of examining fundamental physics constants (the strength of gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, etc) to show that the chance of them being other than they are is so extremely remote as to argue for an intelligent designer.

Many people have put forward this argument; for my money the most lucid is Paul Davies' The Goldilocks Enigma.

Its subtitle is "Why is the Universe just right for Life?" I confess it seems to me that he inhabits a very different universe - the universe I see around me seems almost implacably hostile to life, and we exist on the razor's edge of that "almost". Only one world in the whole of Creation - and on that world 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct?! As if Goldilocks had found the one bowl of soup in an ocean of poison...

I am intrigued - what do you think?

On the specific issue of the "fine tuned" fundamental constants, I'll be blunt - I think its a total crock. There is zero evidence that these constants are tunable in the first place, any more than the value of pi was finely tuned so that billiard balls could be round. With a better fundamental theory, we should be able to calculate their values from first principles, just as we calculate the value if pi.

After all, a century ago, organic chemistry was cited as evidence how "finely tuned" the carbon-carbon bond was - else life could not exist. Tuned by God, one might argue. But today we can simply calculate the properties of the carbon-carbon bond using simple quantum mechanics (I remember actually doing this in 10th grade), and hence show it could not have been other than it is.

And if there is nothing to tune, that rather pulls the rug out from under the supposed tuner.

42 posted on 07/20/2010 10:20:41 PM PDT by John Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: firerosemom

By definition, of theologians of all major religions, God is beyond the view of science-only. Science limits itself to that which can be detected by the senses (and their extensions), has size, quantity and simple location.

Whatever is proved by physics is, again by definition, not God.


43 posted on 07/20/2010 10:53:04 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver; muir_redwoods
“It cannot be proved that here are no living dinosaurs, for example.”

Alligators

IBTHTP.

Cheers!

44 posted on 07/21/2010 12:13:16 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
LOL!

Explain the CRU emails, then.

Cheers!

45 posted on 07/21/2010 12:14:32 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: John Locke
But today we can simply calculate the properties of the carbon-carbon bond using simple quantum mechanics (I remember actually doing this in 10th grade)

What did you use? Hartree-Fock, perturbation theory, CI, density functional theory, or...?

Cheers!

46 posted on 07/21/2010 12:16:49 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Thanks for the post. As I recall, back in those days it was mostly Hartree-Fock. We did use perturbation theory for the H-H molecular bond, but just so we could learn it.


47 posted on 07/21/2010 1:41:50 AM PDT by John Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

alligators are not dinosaurs. The leg joints are different in crocodilians which, by the way, pre-date dinosaurs.


48 posted on 07/21/2010 2:40:05 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: cranked

Does it really ‘matter?’


49 posted on 07/21/2010 3:29:46 AM PDT by AdaGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
"Besides, the essence of Christianity is faith. Seeking proof through science is about the same mentality as those guys in the the medieval days seeking proof through “relics”.It’s an evasion of just using faith."

Scripture never characterizes faith as "blind faith" or "a leap of faith". We can be absolutely confident in our faith in that it is supported by the evidence of the created world (science = natural revelation) and scripture (special revelation). I have just as much faith in the saving power of Christ and his future return as I have faith that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. And for essenstially the same reasons. If one looks at the tangible evidence it points unerringly to God.

50 posted on 07/21/2010 4:48:43 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mr_Moonlight

I’d suggest that you are talking about your personal interpretation of the reality you see around you. You choose to see the world around you and label it “God,” but that does not constitute evidence of God’s existence, at least not in any scientific or theological sense. You’re working on an “I believe; therefore, He is” rationale.


51 posted on 07/21/2010 5:09:57 AM PDT by Happy Amanda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Explain the CRU emails, then.

People lie.

52 posted on 07/21/2010 5:20:57 AM PDT by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: AdaGray

Does what really matter?


53 posted on 07/21/2010 6:40:10 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: firerosemom
But wouldn’t a reasoned, rational proof or dis-proof of God’s existence be able to be spread far and wide, esp. on the internet?

If it was on the internet I think I'd be inclined to disbelieve it.... ;-)

The problem with the idea of proving the existence of God, is that you have to define the parameters of "proof," where God is concerned. What constitutes "proof," vs. a failure to prove God's existence?

Theologian Karl Barth discussed the difficulty of trying to "prove" the existence of a God that necessarily exists outside the universe as we sense it. It may not be possible.

God sorta gets around that difficulty, though, by means of the Holy Spirit, Who operates on each of us directly. God has proved His existence to me in that way -- but that's really just anecdotal evidence, which lies outside the scientific realm.

54 posted on 07/21/2010 6:54:19 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

“The problem with the idea of proving the existence of God, is that you have to define the parameters of “proof,” where God is concerned. What constitutes “proof,” vs. a failure to prove God’s existence?”

I agree - people would have to agree on a ‘working definition’ of God as, say, the Ultimate Cause, (the Uncaused Cause, I think, has been a traditional appellation). And people may spend so much time arguing about a provable definition, that they may not get to examining natural, sense-derived evidence for/against.


55 posted on 07/21/2010 8:56:21 AM PDT by firerosemom ("Don't make Me come down there..." --- God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
I used to know that stuff back in 7th grade or so.

But sadly, with the shifting of the tectonic plates in my mind, it has been obscured.

However, the real reason for my comment (since by your reply, you missed the point, and forced me to be explicit) was this:

Photobucket

(Remember the "IBTHTP" part? I wasn't kidding.)

Cheers!

56 posted on 07/21/2010 12:34:43 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: John Locke
There is zero evidence that these constants are tunable in the first place, any more than the value of pi was finely tuned so that billiard balls could be round. With a better fundamental theory, we should be able to calculate their values from first principles, just as we calculate the value if pi.

You're entering some deep philosophical waters, here.

The problem is, we don't have enough physical data to determine which of the various flavors of string theory / supersymmetry / turtles all the way down is the "true" one: and then there is the controversy over Everett's "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics: which I understand even Everett's PhD advisor, John Wheeler, later rejected.

Without the knowledge of whether there "could have been" (whatever that means!) more than one "universe" we don't know if the values "could" vary.

And if there is only one universe, we then don't know for sure why the constants "have" the values they possess.

As to your Goldilocks analogy, you are missing an important point -- if there were lots of inhabited worlds that would be taken by the skeptic as confirmation that life arose surely by natural processes, without need for the awkward invention of a creator: but if there is only one inhabited world, with most species extinct, that is taken as evidence that a creator wouldn't be so clumsy and inefficient, and have a more hospitable universe.

The fallacy in the argument is that we have no knowledge a priori for deciding what a creator is like, and no way we can guarantee will be efficacious for testing said theories.

So any models of theism end up being as crude as the joke of the physicist modeling a thoroughbred as a spherical horse.

And of course it is unsatisfying, not tidy, and generally in poor form to retreat from experimental empiricism when investigating theories of a putative divine being or beings, especially when such methods have proved so, well, fruitful, in all other endeavors.

One thing which may help to resolve this is the realization that if there *is* a creator, they may take umbrage at being poked, modeled, experimented on and so forth, by a mere creature: just imagine how much a tenured professor of clinical psychology would be pissed off upon finding out that his lab mice were in cahoots to investigate and explain HIM.

Then exponentiate it, since the prof did not create the mice, directly or indirectly.

And before taking the obvious answer, recall that Hitchhiker's Guide and its sequels were FICTION.

Cheers!

57 posted on 07/21/2010 9:02:59 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Great points. What's your opinion of using “revealed truths” from Judeo-Christian history for an indication of both the existence and nature of God?
58 posted on 07/21/2010 10:09:31 PM PDT by Shark24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Shark24
Define what you mean by "revealed truths" please...?

Will continue tomorrow.

59 posted on 07/21/2010 10:35:00 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

By “revealed truths” I mean Scripture and traditions. Since both the Jewish and Christian faiths depend on historical events, do you think any of that history can be used in an objective sense for a proof of God? Just interested in your informed opinion. Thanks.


60 posted on 07/22/2010 7:37:28 AM PDT by Shark24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson