Can Modern Science Prove The Existence Of God?

Opening

I have never met a truly scientific person who did not at least admit to the existence of some form of intelligent designer. Atheist love to assume that scientific individuals are all also atheists, but this simply isn’t true. From my own personal experience, I have found a varying degree of theist belief amongst scientists. In fact many biology professors I have met who teach and believe in the evolutionary theory are devout Christians. Medical Doctors are required to have a complex understanding of biology and science, yet most that I know are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and even Hindu. Science proves that there is no reasonable possibility of life the universe, and existence happening by accident.

The term “God of Gaps” is thrown around a lot lately. It is used by atheists to ignore evidence of a creator being. It is dismissed as fallacy, yet they often use similar logic in their arguments against a creator, (if God exists why is their suffering in the world. etc.) Yet, by using this double standard they become as close minded as the fanatics they persecute.

You then have to understand that, if this being (who or whatever it may be) is so far above us that we will never be able to truly comprehend its existence. This makes it impossible for any religion to be 100% accurate, and if God ever did speak to man it would be in a dumbed down fashion. (Like explaining space time with a piece of cloth and some marbles.)

We can only understand what our brains are capable of understanding. Members of the ape family can use simple tools, but they are incapable of understanding fission. So to, (In our current evolutionary state) we may simply be incapable of understanding or fathoming anything about this intelligent designer. In fact, most will admit that there are a great many things in the universe that we are just incapable of understanding. To assume we are advanced enough to understand everything about the universe (or multiverse) is vain at best, and terribly depressing if true.

When choosing how to see and serve (or not serve) this intelligent designer purely depends on faith. Faith cannot be proven, neither can religious merit, but I am fairy sure that I can prove the existence of an Intelligent designer.

Part A

Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution:

Most people that prattle on about evolution do not even understand what it is. The old saying “Survival of the fittest” does not even begin to explain its complexities. It would be more appropriate to say that: members of a population who experience a beneficial genetic mutation or are blessed by specific breeding are better suited to their environment. These individuals experience better survival, and breeding success, giving their alleles a foothold in the gene pool.

A common misconception about evolution is that the animals adapt to their environment. This is not true, Adaptation Evolution was proposed by Alfred Russel Wallace. Adaptation has been proven wrong, Darwin’s Decent with modification theory is the evolutionary theory accepted today.

It is also interesting to note that Darwin believed in God. In fact he (like many modern scientists) believed that Evolution proved the existence of an intelligent creator. Beneficial genetic mutations are far too rare, based on what we know by the fossil records something had to guide this change to come as far as we have. The chances of “random” mutations leading to modern life are mathematically so unlikely, as to be considered impossible by all but the most stubborn atheist zealots.

The last problem with evolution without intelligent design is complex organs, and systems. We can see this in insects. Insects have the same primitive nervous, and respitory systems for millions of years. Decent with modification usually affects the phenotype of the species through its morphology. Leaving advanced systems and organs unaffected. In Darwin’s own works he expressed this by talking about the eye.

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” (Darwin 1872)

Leaving us with the same extreme improbability as with evolution as a whole without Intelligent help.

Part B

Abiogenesis:

is the theory in which states” life can be created from inorganic molecules.” With the proper mix of chemicals, you can make amino acids. These amino acids combine into proteins combined with nucleic acids; stimulated by energy (light, electricity, and/or heat) you would make life. But there are a lot of problems with this theory.

A chemist by the name of Stanley Lloyd Miller did a “breakthrough” experiment were he combined several chemicals that he thought matched primeval earths make-up. Lo and behold he creates amino acids, the building blocks of Life! Only everything he did, and the outcome was wrong.
1.Miller used ammonia in his experiment, but the high levels of Ultra Violet light on primeval earth would have broken up the ammonia, so it would not have been found in large quantities.

2.He also left out O2. Now it is unclear if Miller thought that O2 wasn’t important. But he probably knew that O2 would prevent the creation of amino acids. O2 has been found through geological evidence to have existed in large quantities on primeval earth.

3.He produced both basic and non-basic amino acids. Basic amino acids are the building blocks of life. But the non-basic amino acids would have interfered with the creation of that life.

4.What Miller produced was in fact a poisonous concoction that would have prevented life from forming, and would be fatal to it.

5.I can all be summed up like this; many scientists have created amino acids through various chemical combinations. But none have been able to produce life starting with inorganic materials.

But let’s say, for arguments sake, that it works “in theory”. If life was created from a collection of amino acids, which formed complex proteins, which miraculously created the first prokaryote, then why did it only happen once? Amino acids and proteins may have been rare in primeval earth, but with life covering the planet the building blocks of life are everywhere. It should (in theory) happen all the time now, but it only happened once. We know it only happened once because modern phylogenetics has proven that all life is related at a genetic level. Not to mention the fact that abiogenesis is in direct conflict with the third law of cell theory. (See below)

So, like evolution, it seems that life can only happen (or is only likely to happen) with the aid of an intelligent designer.

Part C

Big Bang Theory:

says (in simplified terms) that it all started with an extremely hot, dense ball of mater, (quark-gluon plasma) which exploded/expanded outwards. The galaxies are relatively proportional to each other, in waves emanating from the middle of the universe. The galaxies farther out are the fastest, while those closer in move slower. The farthest galaxies that we can see are moving faster. (At the initiation of the big bang it seems some galaxies moved faster than the speed of light. Something thought to be impossible by Einstein’s “theory of relativity”.) So here’s the problem.

The proportional way in which, the galaxies are spreading out break the second law of thermal dynamics. (See below) While the original mass breaks the first law of thermodynamics. (See below)

It may be hard for some people to imagine a being who always was, but the Idea of mater and energy being created out of nothing is a scientific impossibility.

Closing

As one final note:

the existence of the universe as we know it and all life depends on the perimeters, and values of the universe. (Protons, expansion rate, total mass.) With even the slightest of deviation, existence becomes impossible.

Now many have argued that we exist, the universe formed in this perfection, and improbable things happen. But atheists have never accepted this kind of self evident explanations from Theists. So to should the same kind of scrutiny be true of atheists arguments. The sheer impossibility of chance should prove to a rational mind that there was an intelligent designer behind creation. When the improbability of the universe being created, the existence of mass and energy, the universe being able to sustain life, life having been created from non-life, and the various complexities of our evolution are stacked up, the likelihood of an intelligent designer becomes clear.

Above all else, remember this; as soon as you say that something is impossible (whether it be the existence of God or the possibility of faster than light travel) you lose your objectivity and credibility as a scientist, and become a zealot.

If you take away belief systems and look at the bigger picture, God and science co-exist perfectly. Once you see that science proves the existence of an intelligent designer, then why argue with people who put a storyline behind it?

P.S. I am looking for a serious scientific debate.

Cell Theory:
1. All living things are composed of one or more cells.
2. The cell is the most basic unit of life.
3. All Cells come from pre existing cells.
First two laws of thermodynamics:
1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms
2. The release of energy creates entropy in the universe.

when you look into the universe and see the structures magnetic fields create at large and small fractal resolutions. When you see the perspectives in reality and how they shape our every thought and action. Then and only then shall you understand god.

In an infinite universe the perfect conditions always happen somewhere.




[edit on 1-6-2009 by Wertdagf]

Ok, first off S&F for you. I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions here, but you put a lot of work into this effort and your thoughts are well formed. All in all this is a very good post.
Let me start my reply by saying, I do believe in a creative entity. I just happen to believe that that entity is the universe itself. Before the creation of the universe, I don’t care, although I do muse a bit out that as well.
You make a valid and I think very good point to start with the fact that atheists tend to think scientists are all atheists. After all, they see the world as it really is, so why need a creator. Truthfully, every scientist I have ever met or worked with has been in the ID camp in some way. The world is just so complex and well orchestrated that they feel there must be some sort of sentient intelligence behind it.
Where you jump the shark, I think is by saying first we are limited to only what our brains can understand. I agree, but that shouldn’t be a barrier. We can only just begin to understand the way our brains work and we haven’t fully grasped what causes consciousness. There’s too much to this collective unconsciousness stuff to simply say we can’t possibly figure it all out. Besides, telling us we can’t do it because it is way over our heads will only serve to motivate some and de-motivate others.
You also seem to imply we are not part of the ape family simply because we can understand fusion. I really don’t want to harp on this point too much, but we *are* apes. We share all of the biological characteristics of apes. How we got to be how we are now is irrelevant to the fact that by technical classification rules, we are apes.
Evolution is just a theory, yes. A well documented theory and fairly well tested, but still just a working theory. We do know that short term evolutionary theory is valid. There is documented proof of species adapting to their environments and passing those traits to their offspring. This is why we now have super bacteria that are resistant to our antibiotics. They adapt to the antibiotics, generally through the process of epigenetics, and then pass the new genetic changes to their off spring. Viruses, although some debate could be made about whether they are alive, do the same thing.
There really is nothing in evolutionary theory that runs counter to the idea of an intelligent designer. We are simply looking at how the program was built, not the design meetings that went into figuring it all out. I personally feel that the so called “junk dna” is a big component to adaptation. ('Junk' DNA Has Important Role, Researchers Find)
So they aren’t necessarily random mutations as many would like to think. If the code to adapt is present or, as in the case of epigenesis, other non DNA related factors are at work, then it’s far from random. It is a direct reaction to the environment either through chemical, electromagnetic, something we have not figured out yet, or a combination of all of them. The same goes with the concept of the complex organs. Just because something is complicated doesn’t mean it started that way. I write software and things can start simple and get very complicated and sophisticated over time as little bits of functionality are added.
With regards to abiogenesis, I have to agree that this concept is a bit staggering, but I think it has to do with the fact that no one has ever come up with a definition of life that really fits. Viruses behave like they are alive, sort of, but they are missing some of the key features of life. [cont.]

The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.

Wikipedia article on life
See also:
How to Define Life – P.G. Davidson, University of North Alabama
I think viruses may actually be examples of life that never got the “spark” of life. But then that is just my opinion.

By the way, further examination of the Miller-Urey experiment shows that while the apparent composition of primordial earth’s atmosphere has changed over time, the experiment itself has been modified accordingly and can still generate various amino acids, sugars, etc. The debate is by no means over, however; both sides have some pretty good points. For further reading on this, I suggest en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Miller–Urey experiment and take the time to drill into the referenced documents as well.

On another note, Amino Acids have been found in deep space, so the idea of “seeding” is still feasible as well. NewScientist: Amino acid found in deep space

Finally, on the subject of the big bang, you have to remember that until this late 40s the accepted theory was “Static State”, meaning the universe has always existed and is unchanging. The very term “Big Bang” was meant to be a derogatory term coined by Fred Hoyle – a proponent of SS theory. Theories this new will change and adapt. In fact, it has. Many scientists studying M-Theory think that the big bang may actually be a side effect of two branes clashing in what I would have to called “subspace”.

The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time.

'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory
[cont.]

[edit on 6-1-2009 by rogerstigers]

Again, though, I personally don’t have any immediate need to understand the origin of the universe to this level. It seems to me that something like that might be useful in non-standard space travel, but we are not quite there yet.
So, yes, you make some valid points, but all I get from your points is that we don’t yet know it all and we should keep our minds open to possibilities. Life is statistically very likely in the universe and getting more and more probably all the time as we start to discover more and more extremophiles.

I would like to thank you for a well thought out, and well founded response.
Evolution is a theory, but many people use the common terminology of this word and do not understand what it means in scientific terms. (I am not accusing you of this, but just to clarify to other who may post)

What most people consider the word “theory” is really a scientific hypothesis. That is to say it is potentially understood outcome or cause based on observations in the natural world.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis which experiments have been done and data collected that “prove” the hypothesis. (At least in short term. A hypothesis can never truly be proven, as our understanding of science continues to change, and theories become altered or completely scrapped)

Genetic experimentation (crossing of, and strictly controlling alleles in a population) and phylogenetics, back up Darwin’s hypothesis, and make it theory.

You are right that evolution through adaptation has not been completely thrown out by the scientific world, but it is not the currently recognized unifying theory of biology. There are uncounted hypothesis still undergoing scrutinies in the scientific field, to try to relate my paper to all of them would be almost impossible.

Viruses are another good point that you bring up. But like you said viruses lack the mechanisms of life, and as far as we know, like prions, are non-living. The fact that they have RNA, which they inject in to already living cells confuses some into thinking they must be alive. But since all they are is RNA and protein, and have no true organelles or biological functions on their own I have left them out. Indeed if viruses were living organisms, much of my comments on Abiogenesis would be inaccurate.

Your Idea of viruses not receiving the “spark of life” is a keen observation. The unique RNA of Viral strains is a nucleotide, and separates them from other random nucleotides.

I also wanted to clarify the ape comment. I in no way meant to demean our species. While we still grapple with fission, we do understand the concept of it, making our brains superior to other primates.

Prokaryotes being resistant to antibiotics, is still perfectly valid in Darwin’s “decent with modification”. If even a single bacteria has a slight mutation allowing it to resist the antibiotics, (or if a neighboring bacterial strain is naturally resistant) then it’s offspring would share in that immunity. Bacteria have an interesting ability to pass on genetic information to other bacteria, even those not of the same strain, a process known as “conjugation”

www.tufts.edu...&A/Q&A_AR.html

I truly appreciate your input and thoughts on this matter. Any more comments or questions would be wonderful

Why are there so many multiple threads on the same topic in this forum?

Here's one thread currently picking over the same tired old nonsense being peddled by the OP in this one.

And here's another one, started by an political creationist who is highly active on the Web - he's posted ninety-odd YouTube videos pushing his platform.

The OP on this thread is a little late to the party. Not one word of his arguments is new. Not one has not been debunked and sent packing a thousand times. Creationists never learn.

But then, how could they, when they only ever seem to read one book?

[edit on 2/6/09 by Astyanax]

S&F for an excellent post.
I don't want to get into the points you make, but rather i will answer your question in the title directly.

Can Modern Science Prove The Existence Of God?

My answer simply is yes. And i believe that we have very significant data to back up this claim.

Let me start by saying that i believe you are right in attacking the evolution atheist. I always say that being an atheist because of evolution theory is like going to battle with a blunt sword. But to actually prove the existence of God, you can't do that by disproving evolution. You have to do it in a measurable way and with a new hypothesis. Involving different areas of science.

The most mainstream science that came close to finding a God is Quantum Mechanics. As particles being a wave of energy that has no boundaries. Everything exists out of the same energy. And information is being passed through this energy outside of time and space. For example as proven in quantum entanglement. And it looks like consciousness is interwoven with this energy. As proven when you try to measure through witch slit a particle goes in the double-slit experiment (see reference 10).

To further proof that consciousness is interwoven with this field of energy, we have to look at things like Remote viewing and psychokinesis. Both have been studied and peer reviewed.
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (P.E.A.R) have done studies of the measurable effect from the influence of consciousness on random generators. They have a huge set of data. The P.E.A.R. group evolved into IRCL (International Consciousness Research Laboratories). And they are now all about consciousness-correlated physical phenomena.

Remote viewing was used by various governments as a spy tool. And although under heavy fire, it has been proven in experiments by SRI and P.E.A.R. as statistically significant. Read, for example, some background information given by Prudence Calabrese here.
In short short remote viewing is being described as the subconsciousness being in contact with everything without limitations to time and space. Let it gather data from a specific event without the conscious mind interfere with the data.

So the consciousness is everywhere and has a influence on everything. Where does your consciousness stops and mine begins? Where does matter begin an consciousness stop? we are getting close to saying that everything is the same. And there is only one thing that can be called God in my opinion: The total sum of everything.

One thing is for sure. You can´t prove or disprove god with evolution alone. creation alone is not God. God is everything. Good, evil. Cold, warm. Love, fear. Matter, consciousness.
you can never say that a God created life in a setting that he didn´t create herself. Or that she left. Or that he split up into Satan and God. Only one thing can undeniably be called God: 'everything' .
So when we find out that everything is the same, we found God. Whether or not it's going to help us, well... that remains to be seen.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Why are there so many multiple threads on the same topic in this forum?]

Because differences between various views of creationism are subtle. For you it may sounds like the same nonsense, because you perhaps lack the interest. Or you are prejudice, like so many evolutionists are.

The truth is that there is no widely accepted viewpoint on creationism and finding information that goes beyond the dogma of religion is hard. So we are not all brainwashed like evolutionuts and relinuts, and are still capable of thinking for ourselves. So different viewpoints with different angles arise on the same subject. Something that should be recommended instead of suppressed.

reply to post by Astyanax


You obviously did not read the post. Like so many atheist zealots you are more concerned with your opinions than finding any scientific truth. I AM NOT A CREATIONIST!!! A fact that I made very plain if you would like to read above.

If you have any actual input into the subject than I would be happy to respond, but quoting other peoples pseudo science, and giving links to amateur arguments only serves to comfort yourself. It may serve you well to remember that real scientist look at all possibilities, and actually look into the claims of others before denying them.

reply to post by R13sg0


Thank you so much for your reply. Biology and genetics are more my areas, I only have the broadest understanding quantum mechanics. However several friends of mine specialize in this area and I will talk it over with then.

Thank you again for the information.

Originally posted by NRA4ever333
You obviously did not read the post.

I read the post.

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST!!!

I am fairy sure that I can prove the existence of an Intelligent designer.

You are a creationist.

reply to post by Astyanax


A creationist is someone who believes the old testament account of genesis is how the world and the universe came into being. I have made no such claim. Through the literal meaning of the term creationist ( one who believe the universe was created) then yes I am a creationist, however, this is not the commonly used meaning for the phrase. But if we took the term literally, then anyone who believes that the universe was created (by God or accident) would fall, into this category.

Don’t think yourself clever. If you have something to debate, or something to add to my proposal than do it. But I said I wanted a scientific discussion, squabbling over semantics is a childish argument and a waste of my time.


[edit on 2-6-2009 by NRA4ever333]

reply to post by Astyanax


I would also like to comment on your quote “mind firmly closed”. If this is true, then you are no better than a religious fanatic, and you have no place in the discussions of science, or scientific methods. Science is an ever changing field, without an open mind you will be lost, without an open mind science is impossible, and without an open mind you are not a scientist.

People like you make me lose all faith in the intelligence of mankind. I am beginning to think this was not the place to post this. I sincerely hope there are more people on this site capable of their own thoughts. I will be truly disappointed if everyone turns out to be as childish and incapable as you.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by NRA4ever333]

[edit on 2-6-2009 by NRA4ever333]

reply to post by NRA4ever333


Good morning! Well, for me anyway.. nothing like a nice cool morning rain to start the day off right.

I am glad you enjoyed my reply. It took a while, but I wanted to give you the respect of a thoughtful and concise reply. I usually have kind of a knee jerk reaction against creationists who try to bend science to prove science is wrong, but I had a feeling you were not that king of person.

So first off, I want to apologize for any misunderstandings. I certainly did not mean to imply that you are against Darwin. I just like to put those disclaimer in such posts so that people get a better understanding of my viewpoint, specifically that I believe science is a progressive technique. We get and idea and prove that it works and then modify it or throw it out as we get better ways to test it.

I am glad someone posted with the quantum theory stuff. That field of science was what began my journey from being a blind Southern Baptist to being an open minded patheist. The idea that everything is a wave a partical at the same time, depending on your point of view, really rang true to me and gave me good vibrations

I for one an glad you started this thread. Some of the other ones in here are very much one sided and anger filled. Simply put, the moment either camp says they are right, they have proven themselves wrong. With the exception of a single mudslinger, we seem to have avoided that in this forum thus far.

reply to post by rogerstigers


If there is a divine creator(s) I do not believe it would be possible to fully understand it yet. Maybe it is the mystical being so many religions see it as, maybe an indefinable conscious force that is a part of natural processes of the multiverse, or perhaps they are alien (for lack of a better term) beings who occupy a higher level of existence. But In any case I see science as a means for this being(s) to possibly express itself to us. As our understanding of the universe deepens so too will our understanding of this guiding force. When viewed with an open mind, science becomes the gateway to our souls, and our very existences.

It may sound kind of science fiction like, but I believe (and hope) it may be possible (depending on the nature of this being(s), and almost certainly not in my life time) to someday use our combined scientific knowledge to communicate with this creator. That may very well have been it’s plan for us from the dawn of our existence. Perhaps it’s just cloud talk, but it is my dream, and hope.

As for faith, I believe it too has merit. Faith gives men strength to accomplish things that, men without faith would never dare try. Once you have accepted the scientific probability on a creating force, then faith becomes a “hypothesis”, regarding that being(s).

In matters of faith I would call myself an Evangelical Christian, but faith cannot be proven by any known scientific method, so I have left this out of my above proposal. I in no way believe that the bible is the true “word of God”. If this were true there would not be so many contradictions within it. But rather I believe that the overall message of love and tolerance expressed in the New Testament is that of our creator. But as I said, this cannot be proven. Nor am I trying to “convert” anyone. I just thought I should give a little background so you know where I am coming from.

I appreciate your open minded approach to this. Even if you do not necessarily believe in what my above proposal says, you seem to be clear headed enough not to dismiss the possibility outright, and that is all I can really ask for.