Did physists just mathematicall prove the existence of God?

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

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Sorry this is long, but I had to sign up and post it. It's about science so it isn't as slanted as most NYT garbage. The way I read this story, physicists have mathematically come to a road block to explain what two thirds of the Universe is composed of and even the most "hard-core" scientists are starting to call it "God". My favourite part is the quote at the end.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

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

[ContemptofCourt]

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....

[El Sordo]

'Scuze my skepticism, but it seems like they have a long, long way to go before they reach that conclusion.

Right now they are just guessing at what they don't know yet.

Not all that different from aboriginals watching the sun rise.

[per loin]

Before any claim to have proven the existence of God, most decent scientists would attempt at least a rough definition of what they meant by "God".

[shoedog]

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.

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.

Some very interesting, though highly detailed books about that in book stores.

[Frapster]

Rationalism is a funny bedfellow. At one point we deny what we can't see (God) and then as we realize the magnitude and immensity of our own universe we suddenly begin to imagine things that we assume are there by drawing conclusions about our prior understanding of galaxies. In the leap we have of course continued to skip over the notion of God because it doesn't fit into our context. I find it funny that scientists are making philosophical leaps about multiverses simply because we at one time believed there was only one galaxy.

[general_re]

Please forgive a newbie.

Why don't you start by explaining your choice of name? Don't you think it's in rather poor taste?

[thinktwice]

People, without thinking much about it, generally agree that God created the universe; and most people like to believe that God created man in His image, and some believe that God actually sent his Son to live on earth as a human for the purpose of guiding people to everlasting life with God in heaven.

What people haven't seemed to consider is that ... If the universe is infinite, then God must be something greater than infinity; making the concept "God" an indeterminate form in mathematical terms.

Personally, I think there is a God; and I think the best way to live life -- while preparing for (should it exist) an afterlife -- is in wisely using the abilities given individuals by that indeterminate form concept -- God.

Considering the fact that reason is man's greatest ability, the question "What where your achievements?" might be the crucial entrance question at the gate.

[boris]

You are also ashamed that you spelled "physicists" 'physists'.

I forgive you.

--Boris

[plain talk]

Your statement is correct in that many man-made phoney religions have been invented. However, the preciseness of the universe, small tolerances of constants, DNA structure, etc all point to intelligent design. The designer is Jesus Christ. Numerous prophecies, Saints, miracles, the Resurrection, etc affirm this. All He asks is for you to accept him as your personal savior. In other words, knock and he will let you in. Otherwise, perish. Fairly reasonable request. Reasonable or not, He's God and it's his game.

[JavaTheHutt]

OK, I admit it, my brain is working slower than normal this morning, I got no sleep last night.
I didn't catch the name until you pointed it out. I agree, names like that aren't exactly appropriate for a conservative forum. It may be appropriate in a yahoo sex chat room, but not here.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[JavaTheHutt]

OK, I admit it, my brain is working slower than normal this morning, I got no sleep last night.
I didn't catch the name until you pointed it out. I agree, names like that aren't exactly appropriate for a conservative forum. It may be appropriate in a yahoo sex chat room, but not here.

[Psalm 73]

"...physicists have mathematically come to a road block to explain what two thirds of the Universe is composed of..."

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror, then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
I Corinthians 13:12
Oh, to sit (kneel) at the feet of the Master Physicist, and have Him patiently explain what now baffles us...

[general_re]

It seems to me that there are plenty of ways to be funny or unique without going in that particular direction...

[onedoug]

Ethical Monotheism and Alamo-Girl's Origins

A-G, ping.

[aruanan]

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....

You've done an adequate job of describing the intellectual filter through which you look at history, but not the history itself.

As far as people talking about science never having proven the existence of G-d and thinking that statement actually means something--those people have already assumed an affirmative answer to two previous questions: 1. Is there a definitive test by which "science" or "mathematics" could prove the existence of G-d? 2. Has the test been carried out?

The answer to the first question is that, up to this point, there is not such a test and that there has been little serious thought even devoted to the matter. Given the mindset of naturalism (similar to that of liberalism), there is little desire to spend time on it. The answer to the second question is no.

The immediate thought of many with respect to the first question is that if there has been no test, it just proves that G-d doesn't exist. This assumes that if such a being did exist, his existence would be subject to the conditions of the intellectual tool known as "science" and that, therefore, such a test could be devised. There is no reason to suppose this assumption to be valid. If anything, the most that can be drawn from the inability of "science" to devise such a test is that there are limitations to "science"; it certainly wouldn't be that whatever "science" cannot measure cannot possibly exist.

[Aracelis]

Ping!

[Psalm 73]

"...knock and he will let you in. Otherwise, perish. Fairly reasonable request. Reasonable or not, He's God and it's his game."

Preach it, Brother! That's some "plain talk" if I've ever heard it - good stuff.