Does Science Prove The Existence of God?

by AngelofMuZiC 17 Replies latest jw friends

AngelofMuZiC

First, I would like to say.....
HOORAY FOR ME>>>>This is my 100th post. Should I get a cake?(hehe i know i'm corny) I plan to keep on posting, cuz I love mostly everyone here, and I have fun.
Here's the real question....Does science and all of these evolution theories actually prove the existence of a designer...God? I started thinking about this subject while I was reading a book called Calculating God, a science-fiction novel by Robert Sawyer. I suggest to everyone reading-Get a Copy!!! It is a great read!
If we think about how our universe works, it is most definately awe inspiring! Let's take an example.....our atmosphere (despite the fact that it is decaying). The air that we breathe is composed of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, a little hydrogen, a little fluorine, and some other trace elements. Some of you may already know that, and some of you may know that the compositions are something like a little over 72% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 3% Carbon, and very small amounts of other trace elements. If that delicate balance was slightly off, life as we know it would not be able to exist on this planet. Too much nitrogen, and we would freeze. Too much oxygen, and we would blow up...essentially speaking. Another example would be atoms, the tinest particles that make up EVERYTHING. There are several parts to an atom, the electrons, the protons, and the neutrons. Each element is comprised of different atoms, with different nuclear charges. The nucleuses of all atoms are held together by a nuclear force, despite the electrons whizzing about outside the nucleus, and the positively charge protons trying to repel each other. If the force that holds these in place were slightly weaker, then atoms would never be formed, because of the replusion by the protons. If the force was slightly stronger, then the only atom that could exist would be hydrogen.
Here's another example....for you chemists.
Take water for instance. Every lifeform we know of evolved in water...and it is a necessary component to biological processes. Chemically, water is a very simple substance...2 Hydrogen atoms, attached to 1 Oxygen. But it is extremely a unique mixture. Most compounds contract as they cool and expand as they heat. Water does this too, until before it freezes. It begins to expand as it freezes, so that by the time it is frozen, it is actually less dense than itself as a liquid. That's why ice float in the top of your soda glass instead of sinking to the bottom, the way that any solid would sink in liquid form of itself. If ice did not float, then life could not exist, because lakes and oceans would freeze from the bottom up, and no sea floor or lake bottom ecologies would exist outside the zones of the equator. Once these bodies of water started freezing, they would remain solid forever. Water has seven thermal properties, and each are individually and independantly necessary for life's existence.
Maybe some of you have heard examples like this before...I remember the JW's using examples (some of them being completely obsurd like the blender in the bathtub one. How many remember that one?) but I am not trying to prove their point. What I am getting at is that quite possibly, the world could have gotten here by evolution...there is evidence that we have evolved. But I'm talking about CREATED evolution.
So I would really like to hear what you all think!
My Scientific Regards,
Joanne
jelly

Hi, three quick things.
1. I liked your post.
2. I believe in God.
3. No science does not prove the existance of God.
Jelly
funkyderek

If that delicate balance was slightly off, life as we know it would not be able to exist on this planet.

But life has evolved on this planet and caused that delicate balance. It's not such an amazing coincidence when you consider that there are eight other planets in our solar system, which vary from being slightly off to being completely inhospitable for life.
Basically, if the universe is big enough, anything that can happen will happen. The fact that we're here to observe it just means that in all of time and space, in whatever number of dimensions exist, the conditions for complex life happened at least once. God seems rather small and unnecessary.
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
AngelofMuZiC

Very interesting replies...
Derek....you don't think that the delicate balance, that has evolved on this planet, has evolved because it was designed to do this? And as to the eight other planets, there has been no indisputable proof that life exists anywhere else in this solar system. No criticism, just another angle to view things from. It really is interesting to speculate about. And what's really funny...is that most explantions could fit the bill hypothetically speaking.
Joanne
JanH

Joanne,
The air that we breathe is composed of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, a little hydrogen, a little fluorine, and some other trace elements. Some of you may already know that, and some of you may know that the compositions are something like a little over 72% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 3% Carbon, and very small amounts of other trace elements. If that delicate balance was slightly off, life as we know it would not be able to exist on this planet.
This composition is the result of the activities of life on this planet. Life as we know it could not have developed under this atmosphere. Oxygen, a highly poisonous gas for the early organisms that thrived on our planet, is the result of the development of photosynthesis, rather late in evolution.
For some reason, it seems to be almost exclusively people who know very little about science, not even trivial high school facts like what I wrote about above, who thinks science has "proven" the existence of God. Fact is, the more people know about science, the less likely they are to believe in God.
This whole line of thought, which has been somewhat overgraciously called "the anthropic argument", just goes to prove how desperate some religionists are in "proving" their particular superstitions.
Most Christians would rightfully snicker at the thought of e.g. Hindus looking for evidence that humanity was millions of years old, and that apes and other animals could talk in the past. They would find it amusing if Buddhists tried to find scientific evidence for Nirvana, and probably laugh hysterically at a real believer in Greek religion who looked for the adobe of the deities on the top of Mt Olympus, or a believer in Norse religion trying to "scientifically prove" that thunder and lightning was really created by Mjolnir, the hammer of Thor.
Yet, it seems that xtians can even huff and puff in the inhospitable areas of Mt Ararat, looking for the remains of a mythical boat, without attracting much well-deserved laughter from co-religionists. And in desperation to "prove" the existance of the God himself, they can commit the most obvious logical errors, and still the believers, even intelligent people who should know better, are so desperate to believe they can't see these howling errors.
Here's a few thoughts to ponder for religionists who subscribe to the "anthropic argument", which Joanne used above:
Any intelligent lifeform, no matter what conditions it had evolved under, could be able to postulate this or other "from design" arguments to "explain" their own origins. Naturally, if life could not have developed, it would not be around to ask the question. Thus, no intelligent beings anywhere in the universe could possibly exist, without having as much (or, rather, as little) justification for using the anthropic argument as we have.
If we were the result of a supernatural creation, as opposed to naturalistic evolution, why should we expect the Earth to be very hospitable to life as we know it? An all-powerful God could create from totally unfavorable conditions. On the contrary, the fact that life as we know it is compatible with out environment, supports naturalism, not supernaturalism.
Creationists reverse cause and effect. When we are the result of naturalistic evolution, we necessarily are adapted to our environment. Believers seem to assume we were some ethereal spirits roaming the universe, looking for a planet to live on. On the contrary, it's the envirionment that created us. So of course we are adapted to it.
- Jan
--
"People are apprehensive when they meet me. They think I'm going to eat
them. But underneath it all, I'm quite shy." - Freddie Mercury
funkyderek

Derek....you don't think that the delicate balance, that has evolved on this planet, has evolved because it was designed to do this?

No, I think life evolved according to the environment. The proportion of gases in the atmosphere is as a result of life existing on earth, not a precondition of it.
And as to the eight other planets, there has been no indisputable proof that life exists anywhere else in this solar system
I think you misunderstood me. My point was that these other planets don't have life on them. Why not? Because they're in the wrong place. It's a lot less impressive that there's one planet in the habitable zone when there are eight that are not. Essentially, it cuts the odds. When you realise that there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy (one of hundreds of billions of galaxies), many of which may have planets orbiting them the odds that at least one will be in a suitable place for life to evolve must actually be fairly high, even if you are extremely skeptical.
No criticism, just another angle to view things from

Always welcome
It really is interesting to speculate about. And what's really funny...is that most explantions could fit the bill hypothetically speaking.
Very true. Most things are possible, but relatively few are plausible. Occam's razor, the principle of parsimony, is invaluable for cutting through the bullshit.
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
AngelofMuZiC

JanH,
I think you have understood me. I am not trying to prove the existence of God, and I completely disagree that it is 'almost exclusively' people who know little about science that try to prove the existence of God. I read quotes from scientists who believe that in God, and who feel that science shows his existence. If they're scientists, I would think that they have done indepth studies on the subject, so they know more than the average Joe Shmoe. It was merely a question...hence the '?' icon on the topic page. I was just interested in other peoples ideas, not criticism. I have found that listening (or reading I should say) to the ideas of others in many subjects, helps myself to gather information, and then decide what is believable and what is not. In my opinion, everyone is right about something...and everyone has good points.
Derek,
Thank you for clarifying....I guess all things would be possible and plausible if the world were perfect
Joanne
JanH

Joanne,
I think you have understood me. I am not trying to prove the existence of God, and I completely disagree that it is 'almost exclusively' people who know little about science that try to prove the existence of God.
I suspect you meant to say I misunderstood you. But it was a pretty reasonable conclusion to assume you thought your argument actually had some merit.
I did not say that no scientist believed in God. What I wrote was the following:
For some reason, it seems to be almost exclusively people who know very little about science, not even trivial high school facts like what I wrote about above, who thinks science has "proven" the existence of God.
From my experience, the vast majority of real scientists who are theists also acknowledge the fact that science does not in any way prove the god's existence. Some of them even acknowledge the obvious fact that science lends solid evidence against theism. Typically, it is such people who say that faith does not require evidence, whatever that means. I would like to see which respected scientists actually think God is "scientifically proven," as you assert above.
- Jan
--
"People are apprehensive when they meet me. They think I'm going to eat
them. But underneath it all, I'm quite shy." - Freddie Mercury
bboyneko

If that delicate balance was slightly off, life as we know it would not be able to exist on this planet. Too much nitrogen, and we would freeze. Too much oxygen, and we would blow up...essentially speaking.

Heheh I hate this argument. Oh gee, if earth were one inch different in its distance form the sun life couldnt exsist!! This proves god!
Think a little....Look at salt water fish. They could say, wow, if this water didnt have the amount of salt and minerals in it, its pressure would be far less and we'd pop like baloons. THis proves god made us. Then the fresh water fish say, oh look at how our water is extremley light on minerals, if it had salt and minerals in it, we'd be crushed by the pressure and this proves god made us!!
Don't you see? Life adapts to the environment it's presented with. Life exsists in the hottest depths of magma filled earth to the coldest sub artic wastelands to the nice pleasant islands of the bahamas. We are adapted to the air pressure of earth..if we go to the air pressure of mars, we'd pop due to the low air pressure, our bodies and organs are used to getting 'pushed' into shape. Our eyes are used to the amount of light on earth, too bright or too dim and we cant see anymore.
God cannot be put to the scientific method of tests. If he exsists, he chooses to hide and one wonders why.
-Dan
Seeker4

AnglofMzc;
Good question, and Calculating God is a good book. But I think from what I've studied for the last few years as I've left the Witnesses that I have to agree with JanH and FunkyD. And I think you've seen how your reasoning is really similar to the way the Witnesses always reasoned about God - everything in the natural world is so marvelous and complicated, so there must be a designer. It is an aspect of the type of reasoning that confuses the difference between an artifact (like a stone arrowhead) and a natural process (like photosynthesis). While the artifact definitely points to an intelligent designer, the natural process doesn't necessarily do that at all.
And I agree that what is being confused is cause and effect. We are the way we are, and the natural world is wonderfully suited to life on this planet, BECAUSE of the conditions on this planet, not vice versa. But there are still tons of things that don't work so well in the natural cycles, and those have been commented on in various posts here in the past.
I find myself feeling that where I would really like to believe that there is a god with a plan overseeing all of this universe, I now see that god is our own invention, humankind's creation to explain all the things that our emerging minds have found perplexing and frightening over the past few hundred thousand years, and then used by society as it organized itself on a larger and larger scale in order to keep people in line and society from dropping into chaos. Religion, when you look back, has simply been another tool to keep people under control.
There have always been some who have tried to move beyond the veil of superstition that is essentially what religion has been for thousands of years. There are many now - but I'm not sure if it's more than in the past. I know a number of well educated people who are substituting astrology or pagan religions for the more normal mainstream ones. I'm not talking about people who see drumming or ritual as important ways of expressing ourselves and connecting with the world in which we live - but about people who ACTUALLY BELIEVE that drumming will alter human consciousness and bring about a peaceful world, or that a festival ritual celebrating light in mid-December will REALLY be the reason the days start getting longer.
So, superstition and ignorance still seem to dominate in most cultures even today. Part of this is that I think we really do need a connection to our natural environment, a sense of our place in this world, a feeling of true spirituality - and that is where ritual and myth can be of huge help. Our problems lie when we start believing the myth as actual fact. It's what caused me to leave the Witnesses - being forced to believe things that obviously were not so.
The answer? Perhaps it lies in embracing ritual and myth for what they truely are - balms for the soul and spirit, a way to connect with our environment and one another, and not for what they are not - controllers of the physical universe - at the same time that we embrace what science can teach us. Once you take gods and demons out of the picture, it is just amazing how wonderous this universe we find ourselves in really is. This doesn't lessen the mystery and wonder, it multiplies it dramatically. There is a strong argument made by writer Paul Shepard that we are missing something we need as humans, because for the past ten thousand years we've moved away from the world we had evolved in over the previous million years. Reconnecting with the natural environment may be one of the most important parts of our evolution in the coming millenia.
And while some may say that cities and such are just as much a part of evolution as a forest, I think that is again a confusion of artifact (the city) with natural processes and systems - the forest and river and desert.
Just a few thoughts, if that was what you were looking for with this thread.
S4

Does Science Prove The Existence of God?

Share this