And why should the orderliness or apparent design of creation be a sign of divine action? We do not have the essential postulates to begin such a proof unless God himself revealed to us in His wisdom what His attributes are. The Bibile tells us right from wrong, but it also tells us God from what He created.
Proof of and knowledge of God is self-revelatory in nature; let us cast off the hubris of trying to “prove” He exists within our own human abilities.
Otherwise, we would not need faith, it would be (intellectual) works.
” . . . it was nonsense to the Greeks . . .”

I have heard many lame-brained attempts to use science to prove the existence of God

Moreover I did not claim it “proved” the existence of God. What I was saying was that based on the evidence in front of us it is reasonable to assume there is a creator.

Outside the field of pure mathematics there is no such thing as “proof” (and no I can’t prove that). However it is possible to provide inferences such as “nature displays features characteristic of designed structures, therefore these natural structures may have been designed” that can support a theistic position.

To strengthen those inferences it is also necessary to show that alternate positions are inferior in their explanatory power. For example “mutation and natural selection have only demonstrated the ability to produce phenotypic changes requiring three point mutations, intelligent causation is a more reasonable explanation of features that would require more than this”.

Science is merely a tool, a process of observation, hypotheses forming, and testing used to form models that can explain how things happen (N.B. those models may not be “true” but they are intended to be useful). It’s certainly no sacred cow that is beyond reproach.

Let us remember that the question was “Can it be demonstrated that God exists.” I say “No, it is a matter of faith as much as the position that there is no God.” I have heard many lame-brained attempts to use science to prove the existence of God (Note that I am not referencing anyone here — only what I have heard). Usually those who attempt this are not qualified to speak regarding scientific matters even though they like to pretend that they have such ability. Why don’t we leave science to the scientists and theology to the theologians? The average pew-sitter doesn’t qualify as either though that doesn’t mean that they can’t understand their faith just as the average man-on-the-street can have some appreciation of science without being fully knowledgeable in the field.

In a state of superdense matter which then exploded flinging matter outward to form the universe.

The rapid transformation of potential to kinetic energy would have resulted in a high entropy lifeless universe. We see a relatively low entropy universe.

Although I’m not sure how gravity works when a area of superdense matter (which is the entire universe) has no space around it to distort. I’m dubious about the ability of any amount of energy to displace such a massive object.

Moreover if that were the case we would see an evenly distributed expanding dust cloud. Well we wouldn’t see it because we wouldn’t exist. The universe is lumpy, not even, even on the grand scale which is a source of frustration to many scientists who believe in cosmological evolution.

Even cosmological evolutionists don’t posit all types of matter coming out of the “big poof” (as in the cloud of smoke a magician uses to hide their tricks). Rather they believe that hydrogen condensed into pure hydrogen/helium stars which went super-nova scattering the heavier elements for later use by stars like our own. Unfortunately no evidence exists for this type of star.

The “big poof” is much like God’s direct creation inasmuch as it’s an article of faith. The difference is that God’s direct creation is consistent with the universe we see, whilst the claims of the “big poof” are inconsistent with the universe that is.

Finally of course, a block of superdense matter exists but does not itself explain its own existence. Ex nihilo, nihilo est if my bastardized Latin can convey the point across.

My observation is that we can no more know what is “essential” to God than what is “accidental”, and thus cannot tell if a correlation of external effects is proof of cause or just coincidence.
In other words, as I understand it, we can’t know what is essential to a proof of God’s existence unless He himself tells us who He is.
After all, knowledge of God and of Christ is self-revelatory in nature, not only because He chose to reveal Himself to us, but also because in our fallen state we cannot know God without intervention on His part.
I hope this makes sense!

Jason wrote:

Gfsomsel. To say that the universe could have existed in another state is no answer. In what state did it exist? In a state of existence, or of non-existence?

————————————————————————–

In a state of superdense matter which then exploded flinging matter outward to form the universe.

While I personally accept the creation of the world by God, I do not think one can in any sense prove the “existence” of God. One could posit that matter always was and not be any more nor any less consistent than beginning with God. It is no less problematic to begin with God as eternal.

Gfsomsel. To say that the universe could have existed in another state is no answer. In what state did it exist? In a state of existence, or of non-existence?

The argument is that if we accept the position that the universe began to exist we arrive at the second argument. You want to go back to the first assumption and suggest that the universe need not begin to exist. I would point out that what we know of the laws of thermodynamics strongly suggests that if a universe had continued to exist eternally all available energy would have been depleted. Since that is not the situation we find ourselves in it is reasonable to assume that the universe is not eternal and therefore had a beginning.

Moreover I did not claim it “proved” the existence of God. What I was saying was that based on the evidence in front of us it is reasonable to assume there is a creator.

Thank you Vladimir. Yes, argument from adequate cause is where I was going. Sometimes I get carried away with my own verbosity.

Jason wrote:

Option 2. leads us to a violation of the law of non-contradiction as for an object to bring itself into existence requires it to exist (in order to be the bringer) and not exist (in order to be brought) at the same time.

This is not quite the case. That an object existed in another state does not mean that it also did not exist “in order to be the bringer.” It simply indicates that it did not exist in it subsequent form. You simply cannot prove that God exists (which is actually a denial of God). To say that God exists is a denial of God since it considers God to arise out of, and therefore be connected with, the universe. Since God created (and creates) the universe, this is heresy.

Jason,

Why not speak more simply? One needs a sufficient cause to produce a given effect. The argument from design is illustrated by the fact that we as humans have two sets of teeth embedded in our heads even before we have need for them. This evidences intelligent forethought and design.

Vladimir

If we accept the position that the universe began to exist then there are two possibilities.

1. That the universe was brought into existence by another.

2. That the universe brought itself into existence.

Option 2. leads us to a violation of the law of non-contradiction as for an object to bring itself into existence requires it to exist (in order to be the bringer) and not exist (in order to be brought) at the same time.

Option 1. does not automatically fail the logical test and so we proceed further.

3. The bringer possesses volition.

4. The bringer possesses no volition but acts as a result of natural processes.

I have difficulties with Option 4. because natural processes themselves arise within the universe. I don’t see them leading to the universe. If that is the case then we are in the same boat as option 2.

Option 3. allows for there to be a point at which the universe doesn’t exist, before an act of volition brings it into existence.

If the bringer of the universe into existence possesses volition then the bringer probably possesses a degree of consciousness in order to “choose” to bring the universe into existence. If the bringer possesses consciousness then it is likely to be a “being” of some description.

That might need some cleaning up, but I think I have shown that it’s reasonable to assume that the cause of the universe is itself a conscious being.