Did physists just mathematicall prove the existence of God?

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

[1FreeAmerican]

"T'wer it not for God, man would have invented him".

[pollwatcher]

I think I read in Discover about the Cambridge Multiverse Physicist. He is afraid to drive his car at times, fearing that one of his alternative dopplegangers will run down someone performing the same act elsewhere! The article spoke about the photon-slits experiment, which is indeed "spooky" on the surface and could suggest a multiverse.

[PMCarey]

The Anthropic Principle is usually misunderstood by creationists. Creationists will often cite this principle to "prove" that physicists believe in a Creator God. In fact it has nothing to do with the existence (or non-existence) of God.

Think of a child who says to his mother: "Isn't it an amazing coincidence that you're my mom AND we're also related!" That in a nutshell is the Anthropic Principle. The fact that people are alive studying the universe necessarily implies that the universe is set up to support life. One might as well invoke God to explain the amazing coincidence that every square has four sides.

[1FreeAmerican]

"T'wer it not for God, man would have invented him".

[BikerNYC]

Actually, many top scientists now believe God (or for those that refuse to acknowledge him) an intelligent creator formed the universe. This coincides with the big bang theroy as the way it was developed.

Did you see the Nova last night on Galileo and the Church. Many top theologins once thought that the heliocentric model of the solar system was in contravention of the Holy Scripture. Is it?

If the universe, something which is not in and of itself intelligent, required an intelligent creator, wouldn't something that is intelligent need a creator as well?

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

I agree wholeheartedly with you vision and you might even be right about the question. Hopefully it won't be on how to spell "Physicist.

My only comment is that I have always interpreted the "created in his own image" passage to pertain to our souls and not to our physical appearance. The "image" part is merely couched in terms humans can understand, but actually refers to the possession of every person of an infinite, timeless spirit, which in English is called a "soul".

Our bodies are the bodies of animals which tempt us with desires and instincts that are contrary to God's will. That's what makes getting people to do the right thing (and not just what feels good) difficult.

I cannot imagine that God has a body. Where would it be? Would it not them also limit Him to the laws of nature, if He had a body? I don't think you'll ever be finding a long white beard and flowing robes. But it isn't likely that we will ever be able to understand what we will find during our time on Earth.

[Tribune7]

Good article. You're totall forgiven.

[pgyanke]

God does have a body... the physical body of Jesus Christ who ascendend into heaven.

Just because God has a physical body doesn't mean he has to be subject to the laws of nature. Jesus raised the dead, calmed the storms, multiplied food and defied his own burial. He's certainly not subject to natural laws as we are.

However, this also shows the extent of God's love for us. God, who is not subject to life and death, came into this world for the sole purpose of dying a death we deserved.

If you don't believe in your own creator, how can you believe your life has meaning? Purpose can only be given to any creation by its creator.

[JavaTheHutt]

I'm still waiting for your answer to general_re's question from post #8:
Why don't you start by explaining your choice of name? Don't you think it's in rather poor taste?

[JavaTheHutt]

I'm still waiting for your answer to general_re's question from post #8:
Why don't you start by explaining your choice of name? Don't you think it's in rather poor taste?

[JavaTheHutt]

I'm still waiting for your answer to general_re's question from post #8:
Why don't you start by explaining your choice of name? Don't you think it's in rather poor taste?

[mg39]

No one can know that God exists. One can only have faith that God exists.

[Junior]

placemarker.

[Arthur McGowan]

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....

Here's a philosophical question for YOU to answer: How does finding a scientific explanation for something prove that God DIDN'T make it?

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Coming Clean

Ladies and Genltemen - my screen name, while at first seemingly amusing, is, in fact inappropriate.

I have requested that the magnanomous Jim Robinson change my
screen name to: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

I'm sticking with the German theme - it is my home and hobby

Once again, I humbly thank you for your understanding and forgiveness of my thoughtless indiscretion.

[JavaTheHutt]

sorry about the double and triple posting everyone, my computer is going haywire on me today.

[JavaTheHutt]

That's great. Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit is a much better name, and more appropriate to this type of forum.

[ThinkDifferent]

How does finding a scientific explanation for something prove that God DIDN'T make it?

It doesn't, because God's existence is not falsifiable. Just like I can't prove there isn't an invisible pink rabbit that follows me around. But there's no reason to believe in God or invisible rabbits if what we observe can be adequately explained without them. See Occam's Razor.

[thinktwice]

I'm preparing a paper about the soul, a philosophically rational view with a mathematical touch.

I wrote a first draft some months ago, and ... it still looks good. I thank you for stirring my memory.

It will be posted soon.

[MEGoody]

"just because we can't explain it (yet) does not mean that "God" made it...."

Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean He didn't either. We each choose what we wish to believe and no amount of evidence either way is going to change someone's mind until they are ready to have their mind changed. Many claim to be open minded (note the last quote of this article), but it's usually those who claim they are the most open minded who are the least.