Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Does God Exists?

  1. Jan 19, 2004 #1
    Hi guys,
    I think this the basic question which comes into the minds of science
    students. Does God exists? or What is GOD?

    According to my belief, theres nothing like god. I have two reasons for that:
    1. Theres no scientific proof of it.
    2.If someone like God existed, the world would be a much better place to live in.

    What do you guys say?
    Has someone come across any solid evidence about its existence?

  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 19, 2004 #2
    Physics has nothing to do with God and/or religion. It is not the job of science to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God.

    Science in general and physics in particular occupies itself especially with measurable things, with repeatable experiments. Physics is (in)famous for additionally developing mathematical models from the results of these experiments, and for drawing conclusions about not observable matters.

    It is a fact that, even in the age of science there is still no proof of god's existence (nor proof for his non-existence, nor unambiguous evidence in favour of one or the other religion or family of religions.) It is also a fact that science can neither explain, rule out or proove things like a "soul", PSI-powers, appearances, wonders or religious experience. Last but not least, it is also a fact that the decision for a religion is always a personal one, and no impersonal apparatus like science can take that responsibility from us. Fortunately:

    If I "believe" in god just because science has prooved his existence, don't I primarily believe in science? Today's religious leaders are apparently not completely conscious that, by using science for their own self-justification, they advertise "the competition" and discredit themselves.

    Check out a book called "The Mind of God: THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR A RATIONAL WORLD" by Paul Davies.
  4. Jan 19, 2004 #3
    I say this is in the wrong forum.
  5. Jan 19, 2004 #4
    Why? Part of physics is the nature of the universe and how it came into existance. That is exactly what most people attribute to God.

    Suppose Alan Guth and Ed Farhi figured out how to create a universe in the lab. They do so. Then after 15 billion years the inhabitants of that universe start to wonder where it came from. If someone in that universe started to ask "Who is Alan Guth" then he'd be one step of them all. But how is that question not related to the question the other physicists in that new universe are asking about where their universe came from?

    re - It is not the job of science to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God. - Science is not about proving or disproving anything. Science is about observing nature and trying to explain it in a consistent way.

    re - Science in general and physics in particular occupies itself especially with measurable things, ... - Yes. Like the Big Bang

    re - ... with repeatable experiments. - Not quite. It's conserned with repeatable observations not experiments. Do you know of anyone who says that cosmology is not a science since we can't create a Big Bang in a repeatable experiment?

    re - It is a fact that, even in the age of science there is still no proof of god's existence (nor proof for his non-existence, nor unambiguous evidence in favour of one or the other religion or family of religions.) - There is also no complete theory of quantum gravity or a theory of everything. Lack of something has never been proof that the something cannot exist or cannot be attatined.

    re - It is also a fact that science can neither explain, rule out or proove things like a "soul", PSI-powers, appearances, wonders or religious experience. - I disagree here too. Scientists are just now being able to start to ask better questions. We can start exploring aspects of consciousness and scientists have even revently been able to recreate in a repeatble manner Out of body experiences.

    re - Last but not least, it is also a fact that the decision for a religion is always a personal one, ... as is several areas of science.
  6. Jan 19, 2004 #5
    Could you give a brief summary of what this is about? I might be interested in reading it..
  7. Jan 19, 2004 #6
    Remember also that theories are theories and if they cannot be disproved, as shows in many cases, they are regarded as true. This prevents other ideas from letting through and has an inhibitating effect on other beliefs. Very few things are certain and we know VERY little though we like to think that we do.
  8. Jan 19, 2004 #7
    The Mind of God
    Paul Davies
    Simon & Schuster 1992
    A book review by Danny Yee - © 1993 http://dannyreviews.com/

    The Mind of God is one of the recent offerings from physics populariser Paul Davies. Unlike his other books it contains very little in the way of actual physics, being instead about foundational metaphysical and epistemological issues. While it is written for a popular audience and makes no assumptions of prior knowledge, the reader without any maths/physics/computer science background is likely to find the barrage of new ideas heavy going. The philosophically naive reader is also likely to end up confused by the plethora of different ideas being thrown at them. However they should not be put off, as the ideas and issues covered are arguably intrinsically perplexing. (Perhaps the only reason they don't confuse practicing philosophers is because the latter are already extremely confused :-).
    The Mind of God begins with physics, looking at different theories of the creation of the universe, the nature of physical laws and the possibility of a theory of everything. This leads on naturally to a discussion of mathematics and its philosophical foundations, and then on to computer science, and in particular the nature of computation and its relationship to physical processes. Then it's back to mathematics and its relationship with physics. After this things get more philosophical, with a look at various arguments for a "God" or at least something "outside" the universe. The final chapter is a look at mysticism and contains a suggestion that non-rational (religious and mystical) approaches to understanding may be able to go beyond the limits of physics.

    The bulk of the material is expository, but Davies does come to two broad conclusions. The first is that there is something special about the universe, the second is that there is something special about us. "We are truly meant to be here." is the closing sentence of the book. I do not find the arguments for either of these at all convincing. I am tempted to play the positivist and argue that neither of his claims means anything (because I do not understand how anything can be "special" except to or for an observer, and hence cannot see how one can argue that the universe is special without first assuming the existence of a God), but there are other problems with these claims.

    The argument that there is something mysterious about the universe is based on our ability to understand the universe at all and on its apparent operation according mathematical rules. The former is a natural consequence of our existence as intelligent animals, and the explanation of this is the task of evolutionary biology. (See below, and consult any work on the evolution of consciousness and cognition.) The latter is only significant if there is an alternative, and I would argue that anything with structure can have that structure represented mathematically, and anything that "exists" must connect to other things (perhaps there are invisible, intangible, non-interacting pink elephants out there, but they don't concern me) and hence must exhibit some kind of structure.

    The laws of physics are indeed such as to allow life to exist, but it is not clear that we can deduce anything about our own significance from that. Even given the right laws of physics it seems that the existence of Homo sapiens (or indeed multicellular life) on this planet is a contingent fact of natural history and by no means inevitable. (See Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life, for example.) Also, given that we do not even know what Omega (the average mass density of the universe) is to within an order of magnitude, it seems hard to argue for the sensitivity of the existence of life to the "initial conditions" of the universe!

    The long progression through the arguments for the existence of God - the good old ontological argument, the cosmological argument and the argument from design all making their appearance - is a little odd. Davies provides more than adequate explanations for the failure of each of the different arguments as he proceeds, yet at the end has somehow given the impression that all the arguments put together, despite having been individually refuted, give some kind of support to there being a "God".

    Davies' restriction of his view to the physical and mathematical sciences and his complete neglect of the historical sciences is also worrying. To me his ideas seem a strange mixture of Cartesian reductionism on the one hand and mystical idealism on the other. He attempts to reduce epistemology to physics, mathematics and computer science, and then, when these don't seem to be able to explain everything, resorts to appeals to mysticism and religion. I certainly agree that there is more to the universe (and epistemology) than physics and mathematics deal with. However, instead of looking to mysticism or religion for information about this or about our place in the universe, I would suggest trying anthropology and evolutionary biology.

    These qualms about Davies' broader conclusions aside, The Mind of God is a brilliant exposition of foundational philosophical issues in mathematics, physics and computer science. It is recommended reading for anyone interested in the big philosophical questions.

    15 December 1993
  9. Jan 19, 2004 #8

    Your reasons for not believing in God are very shallow, to say the least. I'm not trying to offend you, im only telling the truth.
    1.)There is no scientific proof
    2.)The world would be a better place

    Ok, first I will have to say that there is no scientific proof for anything. Science is a theories, it is all guesses. Saying "scientific proof" is an oxymoron. Science is simply the best guess one can make about something.
    Now, im not against science, i love science.
    Its just that it can never be advanced enough to prove the existance of God. The reason: If God does exist, He would want people to have faith in Him, but He wouldnt want people to show that He surely exists. Because that would destroy the purpose of faith. So God would make His universe in such a way that His own existance could never be shown. He controls the universe which means He controls whether you are able to prove He exists or not!

    And to your second reason. I find that the most shallow of the two. We are imperfect creatures and were given rule over the Earth along with other beings who are imperfect. God doesn't want to have the world "be better" right now, for some reason or another, so he keeps us in charge and it will stay imperfect until He returns (the 2nd coming of Christ)

    I know I had to add a few religious things in there, but it was necessarry to get my points across.
  10. Jan 19, 2004 #9

    This is a physics forum. There is a thing on the internet called religion forums. I am sure they would love to hear your ideas.
  11. Jan 19, 2004 #10


    User Avatar

    Science (and physics in particular) is about the study of the natural world. God most often is given the attribute of being non physical (whatever the hell that means) and by definition is outside the realm of science. That's really all there is to it.
  12. Jan 20, 2004 #11
    Re: crazy

    If the world was a much better place than it currently is, would god be expected to exist?
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2004
  13. Jan 20, 2004 #12
    Science may not be able to disprove the general concept of a deity, but it can disprove individual creation stories and religious lore. For example, in the bible, rain comes from when god opens up his dome that separates the waters above from the waters below. This is patently false. So we can disregard the bible as being completely true.

    There is also the problem with the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god and how that idea does not correlate to our known existence. Not only is this true, but the very idea of omnipotent is impossible (An omnipotent being cannot make a rock that it cannot lift, because not being able to lift it would be a limit on its power, yet not being able to make it is a limitation, as well. Also, every interaction is an equal-opposite reaction so as to not have something from nothing. This means that to cause change, you must be changed yourself.)

    Even if science cannot disprove the idea of a deity, rational thought can.

    A deity cannot exist, because the definition of a deity means that it is noncausal, and you have something from nothing each time a noncausal action occurs.
  14. Jan 21, 2004 #13

    Eh, that question used to bother me
    The one about God and the Rock
    Well, think about this. If God is all powerful, that means he is able to put limits on himself.
    So it would go like this.
    -Create Rock
    -Put on limits
    -Try to lift Rock and fail

    Thus, the answer to "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?" is Yes.

    Logic and Reasoning do not disprove a deity's existance, it only shows one side of the coin.

    And about the whole Dome opening and rain coming down. What part of the Bible did you read that in, I would like to know. (I havent read the whole thing yet) Just tell me what verse it was and I will get back to you on what it means.
    Right now, I am guessing it is probably a reference to the story of noah. Their used to be a layer of ice above the atmosphere due to the meissner effect(the dome), and it broke apart into rain (the opening and raining). B
  15. Jan 21, 2004 #14
    Well, if god has limits, then god is not all powerful, so the argument still stands.

    There's a bit about it in genesis 1, but there is may be more lurking somewhere else.

    Layer of ice? What are you talking about?
  16. Jan 21, 2004 #15


    User Avatar

    That's just a reference to some pseudoscientific nonsense that uneducated creationists tend to spew. There's nothing scientific about it.
  17. Jan 21, 2004 #16
    Please, Eh. Define what is true then. Do we know anything for certain? Is education only truth? No. It's hypothesis, theory accepted on the basis that it cannot be contradicted or disproved and so on. Your arrogance will take you nowhere except to ignorance and limited and inhibited understanding.

    To understand, one must confront the subject/object from all possible, thinkable and unthinkable angles. The world was not adapted to our minds, it is our minds' task to adapt to it.
  18. Jan 21, 2004 #17


    User Avatar

    That's irrelevant because my statement has nothing to do with epistemology. Creationism is unscientific, and it's nonsensical to pretend otherwise. That is exactly what creationists do by attempting to argue about a global flood.
    If recognizing creationism as childish nonsense is arrogant, so be it. However, I will say that creationism deserves no better approach. Creationists frequently take a branch of science they have virtually no understanding of and yet still feel the need to lecture others on how wrong it is. I mean, what kind of moron would argue about a subject they know nothing about?

    Of course, that is exactly what creationists do. In spite of knowing nothing about a subject, many will even feel qualified to debate experts (biologists, geologists, astronomers, etc.) in the field. The result is that creationists end up making an embarrassment of themselves. It is no wonder the world laughs as creationists.
  19. Jan 22, 2004 #18
    A layer of ice high in the atmosphere would have to either float or be supported by the earth, or encompass the whole earth.

    It could not float, due to its density being higher than that of air.

    If it connected to the earth, it would be very large, and as size increases, structural integrity decreases, so it would not be able to hold itself up for any amount of time.

    The encirlcing of the earth falls prey to the same size pitfall.

    Also, there would be nothing to hold the water there while it froze. It would have to all freeze at once, or bits and pieces would have to be held up while waiting for other parts to freeze.
  20. Jan 22, 2004 #19
    when i mean dome of ice, i didnt mean "solid" it was much like cirrus clouds of today, but much bigger, obviously.
  21. Jan 22, 2004 #20
    dear Eh

    Well, I have to agree with you in the aspect that some creationists have no clue of what they talk about. The ones that go against science are just stupid. Because science is not the opposite of religion, even tho some think it is for some reason.
    But let me just say that the discovery channel's Walking with prehistoric beasts was just as rediculous as any uneducated creationist, if not more.
    My reasoning...the show talked more about some little life story about every creature. All those stories are fiction, you know that right? Someone made up the story of the gastornis chasing the propaliotherium (spelling?). Sure, maybe it did prey on that animal, but the specific story used in the show was made up. And you can say the same for the rest. The only actual "science" in that show was them talking about the bones and how they GUESS how the animals behaved.
    The reason I believe in creation because I have seen better scientific evidence for it than I have for evolution. And until I see convincing evidence for evolution, I will continue to believe in creation. It is as simple as that.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook