Evidence for God from Science

John Hammond wrote: I think you actually pointed out that QED does describe only a limited part of nature, since it does not describe gravity or nuclear forces.

This is totally irrilevant; in fact there is no reason to expect that electromagnetic interactions must be the only interaction existing in nature; gravity and nuclear interactions also exist in nature.

John Hammond wrote:

Second, I did not say that the laws of physics were human representations; I said that abstract mathematical equations are humanly created symbolic representations, some of which appear to describe behavior in nature quite well and so are useful as symbolic proxies for, or representations of, the laws of physics.

The point is that the laws of physics ARE only abstract mathematical equations; so your argument does not stand. The laws of physics are intrinsically abstract concepts. As I have written in my previous message, try to explain which concrete entity is represented by a Schroedinger equation.

John Hammond wrote: In order for science to have proved that abstract mathematical equations determine behavior in nature, some scientist would have to demonstrate that altering one of these equations *causes* the alteration of some corresponding part of nature (or catch God in the act of doing this).

Since no man can alter the laws of physics or catch God in the act of doing that, the only possible way to prove that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations is to find a systematic agreement between experimental data and theoritical predictions; this is what we would expect if the state of the universe was determined by some mathematical equations and this is what we have found. If you reject this position, you are totally unable to account for our capacity to predict systematically experimental data through a specific system of mathematical equations.

John Hammond wrote:
However, the more important question which has so far gone ignored in this discussion is the question concerning the origins of physical order and laws—mathematical or otherwise—and the necessity of such laws to have a law-giver (e.g. God at his whiteboard writing down the equations which determine the laws of nature): If we demand the existence of a conscious Being as Creator to explain the order we observe in nature, then why does not the same demand apply to explain the existence of the Creator?

You have missed my point: The necessity of the existence of a conscious and intelligent God is a consequence of the intrinsic abstract nature of the laws of physics.

Marco

[Since no man can alter the laws of physics or catch God in the act of doing that, the only possible way to prove that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations is to find a systematic agreement between experimental data and theoretical predictions; this is what we would expect if the state of the universe was determined by some mathematical equations and this is what we have found. If you reject this position, you are totally unable to account for our capacity to predict systematically experimental data through a specific system of mathematical equations. ]

I can account for our predictive capability simply by arguing that some of us are astute observers of nature and its patterns, and we are able to successfully generalize our observations. Systematic agreement would also be expected in this case as well I do not need to posit that my equations--or any equations--are actual cause for the universe and its patterns. It may very well be the case that equations are causative of the behavior they describe, but merely demonstrating prediction does not prove this; it only proves that nature has patterns and I am observant enough to recognize some of them

Marco--I think your statement that an equation causes natural phenomena is quite different than saying it predicts natural phenomena. Predictive correlation does not prove causation. I seems to me that you are invoking the usual arguments of order requiring design and design requiring a designer, with math equations as the middlemen.

You began this thread with the claim that science has proven consciousness to be unphysical. How else can science prove this claim, other than by measuring or observing a behavior of consciousness which violates one or more physical laws. It does not suffice to say that science does not currently have an explanation for some observation--that is not violation. Further, it must be shown that there is no physical law--known or unknown--which can explain the observation in question. I do not believe science has done this, and it is unclear how science could ever do this. Since this claim is crucial to your argument, could you provide some peer-reviewed evidence for this? If not, then claims of scientific proof are unfounded, and the argument unravels.[/quote]

John Hammond wrote:
I can account for our predictive capability simply by arguing that some of us are astute observers of nature and its patterns, and we are able to successfully generalize our observations. Systematic agreement would also be expected in this case as well I do not need to posit that my equations--or any equations--are actual cause for the universe and its patterns

Your argument does not stand and you are totally unable to account for our predictive capability; in fact, our observations of experimental data could never allow find mathematical equations able to predict future experiments if natural processes were not determined by some specific mathematical laws. The analysis of experimental data could at most allow us to find some equatios able to account for past experimental data, but every new experimental data would require a new analysis and a revision of our equations. Our situation is compeltely different; the equations of quantum mechanics have been found one century ago, after the analysis of some simple atoms and molecules; these equations have then correctly predicted the behavior of billions and billions of new molecules and systems, and we have never needed to change them. Think about it.

John Hammond wrote:
How else can science prove this claim, other than by measuring or observing a behavior of consciousness which violates one or more physical laws.

If it was possible to measure consciousness, consciousness would certainly be physical. It is instead the mere existence of consciousness which violates the laws of physics, since no consciousness is predicted by the laws of physics.
I think you have missed my point, but since I think I have explained clearly my argument about the trascendent nature of consciousness in my site, I am not going to repeat it here.
I suggest you to read more carefully my articles.

Best regards,

marco

Marco--thanks for the thoughtful replies.

I still don't see how a pattern in nature demands an abstract template for its existence. Prediction and causation are independent: I can cause an accident to happen, but not predict it; and I can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, but not cause it.

Consciousness is not a well-defined term; but to the extent that it exists, its existence does not violate any known physical laws. Thus, it cannot be said to be unphysical. Lack of prediction cannot be used to conclude scientifically that any observation is unphysical. Otherwise, many of our most important scientific breakthroughs--which were not predicted by physical laws as we understood them at the time, and in some cases even seemed to violate the known physical laws--would be proof that God exists (at least by your argument).

Marco, two axioms of your belief system appear to be:
-- no physical process can occur without the existence of an abstract template to cause it , and;
-- no abstract template can exist without a conscious being to conceive it

The validity of these axioms are based in philosophy, not science. There is nothing in current scientific knowledge which either supports or refutes these assumptions.

However, using these axioms, I can also conclude that God is not comprised of any real physical processes (other than random patternless activities); for if He were, He would also require an abstract template for His existence, and this template would need to be conceived in the mind of yet another conscious being. Thus I would conclude that either:

--God has no order and structure, and therefore could not be the cause of order and structure, or;
--there are an infinite number of Gods. (God could nat have conceived His own template, as the template would need to exist before God in order to cause God.)

Neither of these conclusions is consistent with the Christian concept of God.

Dear John,

I think that your arguments are totally inconsistent.
This discussion is getting too repetitive, so I'll stop here, unless some new valid arguments is raised.

Best regards,

Marco

OK, Marco--thanks for taking the time. Best of luck on your quest!

In Christ,

John

FYI--I just googled this guy, and he has pasted the exact same essay--including typos and mistakes-- all over the web, followed by the same rigid rejections of anything other than obsequious praise for his thoughts.

I'm sorry I wasted my time on this...

John Hammond wrote:
I'm sorry I wasted my time on this...

It wasn't a total waste of time - I for one enjoyed your posts.

sandy

Thanks, Sandy. Given my background, I should know better than to get dragged into an argument with a psyche case. This combination of rigidly held beliefs and abandoning the discussion when it doesn't support his view is, unfortunately, the hallmark of someone with delusional disorder. The internet is a haven for such people. Marco is looking for followers, not truth. Once upon a time he was a real scientist, but that was long ago. I am sorry for what happened to him. I don't think we'll see him here again, at least if his history at other discussion groups is any indication.

It's very sad for me personally, as a scientist and mathematician, as I see the study of nature as one of the best ways to support spirituality. I was genuinely hoping for a meaningful discussion. Oh well...maybe some day...Next time I will do a little more research before entering into a fruitless discussion.

Always wanna be a little wary until the post counts get up and everyone gets to know the guy.

I am new to this group, in fact this is the first forum like this I have been a part of. Let me begin by saying that I also am of a basically scientific turn of mind so I am sympathetic to the viewpoint expressed by marco. In fact I have examined the intellectual arguments for God at considerable length,quite a few years ago.

The end result of that was that it is at best inconclusive and at worst confusing. And in the end I found that it was actually irrelevant to the faith that I discovered was really driving the whole thing. St Thomas Aquinas wrote 23 volumes of a work called Summa Theologica, a summation of theology and knowledge of God. In the end he quit writing because realized he couldn't honestly summarize it.

I suspect you're right. With a bit of thought, it seems unlikely that science will ever prove God's existence. Practicing scientists hold as an article of faith that nature has predictable patterns of behavior than can always be explained using rational laws. If the scientific community were to be presented with a miracle, the best conclusion they could come to is that known laws cannot explain the phenomenon. It would not be valid to conclude that there is no rational explanation; only that there is no explanation which our present knowledge of science can offer.

Of course, many of us violate this limitation in our own personal reasoning when we conclude that the overwhelming beauty and complexity of nature is so far beyond our rational ability to comprehend it, that it ultimately must be His creation. This is the essence of faith: a deep and abiding belief in that which cannot be proven on purely rational grounds.

In this context, I often think that it is lack of faith which would compel a person to try to prove God's existence based only on scientific principles. The opposite of faith is certainty; this is antithetical to Christianity.

John, I can tell you from experience that as faith is affirmed it becomes more like certainty. I would have to respectfully disagree that certainty is antithetical to christianity. I think if you look at the lives of the apostles you would probably conclude that they started out uncertain but uncertainty is not likely to be behind their later actions. Paul does not show much uncertainty in his writings, to the annoyance of many critics.

I think the issue here may be the definition of certainty, you used it in the scientific sense of repeatable and consistent results, I think. Actually I am using a rather similar {to me} definition but what I perceive would not be recognized by your average scientific observer. That makes it no less consistent but much harder to perceive, it requires faith to perceive it.

Right j316... Faith does get stronger and stronger, to the point that it is accepted as fact by a believer as he/she grows in the Lord. But that certainty, though very real, remains subjective in the sense that it cannot be imposed on another person as proof. Objective, scientific proof on the other hand, can be imposed on another person, as true scientific evidence requires no activity on the part of the observer to be recognized. In other words, scientific evidence requires no faith at all to see, so it applies to everyone equally.

Such is the type of certainty that will likely never exist. After all, God's intention is not to preserve His kingdom for learned and very intelligent scientific persons. Rather, His intention is that through faith we demonstrate our acceptance of Him in humility as opposed to intellectual pride.

Hi Felgar,

Objective, scientific proof on the other hand, can be imposed on another person, as true scientific evidence requires no activity on the part of the observer to be recognized. In other words, scientific evidence requires no faith at all to see, so it applies to everyone equally.

This is an interesting statement. How do you know that the external proof you see is true, if you have no preconception of what truth is? Where does that preconception come from? How do you define truth? How do you know that scientific truth is absolute, so it applies to everyone everywhere?