Did physists just mathematicall prove the existence of God?

The New York Times | Oct. 29, 2002 | DENNIS OVERBYE

[pgyanke]

From your link on Occam's Razor: "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

and, "Stephen Hawking explains in A Brief History of Time:
'We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed.'"

lastly, "Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which he called the Principle of Economy, stating that 'Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses.'"

---

Occam's razor has been applied by scientists to rule out that which they can not prove and, as in the last quote above, that which they can not perceive. However, theologians and the faithful throughout the ages have acknowledged that God can't be proven nor perceived. He simply reveals Himself as He chooses. A scientist's failure to perceive does not disprove the reality. If it did, there would be no such thing as quantam physics.

On the flip side, the argument always ensues that God may not be able to be disproved but He can also not be proved. I disagree. As Occam's Razor suggests in its simplest translation, "that which is the simplest is the best explanation." Is it simplest to believe that the universe is one big accident or that there is a consciousness that guides its development? Many doctors, who's egos are in check, acknowledge that the more they learn about the body, the more they are convinced there is a God. Life is not an accident.

Those who believe find a greater understanding of reality. Those who refuse to see, blind themselves to the incredible bounty of creation. God has touched so many so personally that it is not hard at all to find those who have perceived Him.

What an empty existence it must be to not have a purpose in being. Oh... life does have a purpose? Given by whom? If you think deeply on the nature of reality, you find that there is no other plausible explanation or purpose for all that is than for creation to serve its creator.

[ThinkDifferent]

"...There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."

Unfortunately when this quote is put in context it shows the exact opposite of what you intended. See this page, under the "Open vs. Closed Systems" heading. Ross was correctly stating that open systems do follow the 2nd Law *because* they require an external energy source in order to decrease their entropy.

[BikerNYC]

Aren't you guys a little too old to be splashing down there at the kiddie end of the theological/philosophical pool?

Ah, yes. When a question is too difficlut or embarrassing to answer, the first thing to do is to declare it beneath the dignity of the speaker to respond.

[f.Christian]

Entropy(rotting leaves/sun) can cause dis-entropy(multch/plant food) but that doesn't explain where seeds...bacteria---LIFE comes from.

Evolutionists seem to believe that the water(warm)...gas(heat)---ICE/crystal(cold) cycle is proof of evolution...

shell/HOAX game---FRAUD/corruption!

[BikerNYC]

What an empty existence it must be to not have a purpose in being.

Maybe the purpose is to make your own purpose.

Oh... life does have a purpose? Given by whom?

You.

If you think deeply on the nature of reality, you find that there is no other plausible explanation or purpose for all that is than for creation to serve its creator.

If the purpose of the creation is to serve the creator, I shudder to ask about the purpose of the creator. To create? Sounds rather circular.

[Fiddlstix]

I am ashamed that I made spelling mistake (y is missing in mathematically) on my first post.
Please forgive a newbie.

All is forgiven J
(I was a "Newbie" once too)
C
Great "First Post"!

[pgyanke]

"Maybe the purpose is to make your own purpose"?! Ok... let's go with that a second. The fundamental premise of your statement still presupposes that there is a purpose. Even if our purpose is to make our own purpose, it still require a conscious endowment of purpose.

I make my own purpose? Where is that anywhere in the realm of reality? Is a vehicle designed with a purpose or does it make up its own? Creations don't make their own purpose. They are created with a reason for their creation in mind.

The purpose of the creator? The creator came into the world Himself and told us His purpose. He is the eternal and living God and we are here to learn to love Him absolutely. He was not created. Before the universe existed, He existed. We presume way too much when we put God in the square hole fit for human understanding.

The first sin recorded in the Bible is the devil's sin. He wanted to be God himself. How dangerous the mindset that seeks the same goal.

[patriot_wes]

That theory asserts that when the universe was less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old it underwent a brief hyperexplosive growth spurt fueled by an antigravitational force embedded in space itself

Oy vey Hillary...did you yust fart?

[MissAmericanPie]

I wonder if this verse means Paul has already been there. Everyone has heard the phrase "Seventh Heaven".

2 Cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

This is not the only example, there is a related history of a man called Enoch, who walked with God, and then he was not because God took him. Of course some people look on these as fables, some look on them as simple facts.

[RightWhale]

An Amazing Coincidence - exactly what it isn't. It is no coincidence that we inhabit this universe out of the infinite number of possible universes. That in a nutshell is the Anthropic Principle.

Sure, but while we know what it isn't, why can't we just say what it is by giving a definitive statement? [You first, I don't have Guth's book handy] Or are we just going to say the name of the Principle from time to time and let the untutored masses stampede away and over the horizon with their new word toy as usual?

[Delbert]

Big Bang? You've got to be kidding.

GOD

[Condorman]

Ironically many scientists who were athiests have now come to believe in God through their studies on this and the mistaken belief of evolution (where living beings came from non-living matter) which have been disproved.

A full discussion of this topic is better suited for another thread. That said, two points: 1) the theory of evolution makes no claim regarding the origin of life, and 2) the list of quotes from which I predict you drew your (I presume, it was not entirely clear) "scientists fleeing evolution in droves" claim has been conclusively debunked, including on a previous thread.

[VOA]

bump

[BikerNYC]

I make my own purpose? Where is that anywhere in the realm of reality? Is a vehicle designed with a purpose or does it make up its own?

Do vehicles think? We do. We can create. We can create our own purpose.

Creations don't make their own purpose.

They do when they are conscious.

They are created with a reason for their creation in mind.

I'm sure Dr. Frankenstein had a purpose in mind for his monster when he created it, but as soon as his monster was created, it was free to create its own purpose. Do you think that monster had to listen to the good Doctor pontificating on what its purpose was? Hell no. It was completely free to go out in the world and create its own.

The purpose of the creator? The creator came into the world Himself and told us His purpose. He is the eternal and living God and we are here to learn to love Him absolutely.

We are here to learn to love him? Stop talking about us. Talk about the Creator. What is he here to do? Be loved? If he has a purpose, who created it for him (assuming, like you do, that conscious beings are not free to create their own purposes)? If he doesn't have a purpose apart from what he decides for himself, what quality about him makes that possible? That he is conscious? Like us?

He was not created. Before the universe existed, He existed.

Can you prove that? How can it be that such a complex being as God, something cabable of creating an entire universe and everything inside it, everything that needs a creator itself, how can it be that such a being does not itself have a creator? If something so simple as a rock needs to be created because of its complexity, why wouldn't God not need a creator as well?

[Phaedrus]

This sounds in many ways like a description of All That Is with which I have become quite familiar . . . ;-}

[orfisher]

>>Not all that different from aboriginals watching the sun rise.<<.....or contemplating one's navel

[Stone Mountain]

Hey... I like your screen name - nothing wrong with a little humor here!

[pgyanke]

As I said earlier, "We presume way too much when we put God in the square hole fit for human understanding."

I don't claim to understand God's reasons or His purpose. I take Him at His Word. My challenge (getting back to the thread) is to the scientist who, in applying Occam's Razor, discounts (without considering) that which they are unable to perceive. Since there is no consideration of the possibility of God, there obviously can't be an empirical proof.

God came among us in the person of Jesus Christ and didn't discount all of human history... He revealed and fulfilled it. Those that have come after Him seeking to discredit Him have done so by denying history and the evidence of His interaction in world events.

The heavens and the earth may pass away but truth is eternal. Those who come after us will develop new lies and fabrications... but they will discover the same truth.

[lavaroise]

Since the beginning of time, whenever man could not explain something, he attributed it to God.....just because we can't explain it (yet) does not mean that "God" made it....

.... and if we can "explain" it, it does not mean that "God" did not make it either... but some do credit fully their dogs for teaching them how to train them ... while others are a bit more realistic in discerning "proselytising" variables from the essential variables, the good currencies yielding good fruits.

[itsahoot]

Silence!!

You are not supposed to ask that!!

Makes much more sence that, first there was nothing,
then there was this "Big Bang"