God’s Existence and Argumentation about its Proof

Due to the immense knowledge scientists have acquired over the vast number of centuries, arguments have been proposed to reveal whether God, or some intelligent designer(s), exists. The logic used in such arguments shall be illuminated here, in order to reveal the approaches utilized to logically deduce His existence.

The general view from science shall be used here. On the view that physical reality may or may not be orderly by nature, we must thereby assume three general positions in order to deal with such a dilemma. First is a mechanistic worldview, the second being a partially mechanistic worldview, and the third being a completely guided physical system by a source unknown to us. If the God of Abraham exists, that is, a god who constantly intervenes with our physical reality in order to bring about results that is in accordance to god’s desires, then scientists expect to find scenarios wherein it is unexplainable by science. (I am unsure of the other gods that exist, as I am not well read in that area) On the other hand, if God does not even exist, then scientists expect to find no loopholes, and that any rare experimental or observational error or abnormality can be accounted for by science. The second position previously mentioned above is therefore its intermediate. One has to ask then that if God guides processes in the universe in a mechanistic manner, such that the view of a mechanistic universe is nothing but an illusion, then are we all living in a delusion then. This issue will have to be dealt with not by scientific observation and experimentation, but by logic and the necessity of explanations of phenomena. We would have to ask questions such as why did God make cyanobacteria evolve into plants, since their existence is sufficient for his creation of humans – that the oxygen they produce from photosynthesis are sufficient for humans to breathe in? Alternatively, why did God make molecules take the form of geometrical shapes? Or that why does God like variation and transitions among species? If theologians cannot come up with explanations, let alone provable and objective explanations, then we logically deduce that there is no need to even put God into the picture, as theology is circular by nature, offering nothing but blank statements like, “I do not know the answer as to why God does it in this manner, but that I know God likes variation among organisms”. Such is only an argument from ignorance, and serves no value to the enquiring mind.

The specific physical argument for or against God to be discussed here has to do with physical dimensions. The argument for God is that if we do indeed see no evidence of God’s existence, then it could be because he exists outside of the four dimensions (three dimensional space and time) and thus science cannot observe it. Alternatively, that god exists outside of nature it self, if the previous hypothesis has been disproved. My take on this would be based on the Conservation of Mass and Energy. My question would be that if this law be subjected to the dimension of time, or that such a law of infinite existence of energy and mass be independent of time itself. (I confess that I am yet unable to answer this question as I have not yet acquired a Masters in Physics) If proven that this law is not primarily subjected to time, then it shows one thing, that omni-existence is independent of time. Nevertheless, why am I relating time and infinite existence together? Richard Dawkins revealed an argument, that if the theory of evolution be able to fully account for all occurrences of biological life, and that since intelligence and complexity of this nature has to arise through evolution, then how did God evolve? Or if I were to use another line of logic that is similar to his result, that if God creates intelligence, then who created God? If existence be proven to be dependent upon time, as in through the conservation of mass and energy, then this shall follow. If God exists outside of time, but that evolution or creation be necessary to cause existence through time, then indeed God does not exist. However, if existence be proven to be an isolated characteristic of time, that even if evolution or creation is needed to cause existence, God nevertheless exists. Such does not lie on one physical law, but may rely on many others, and indeed on logic. Existence in terms of infinity is a definition of timely existence, meaning that infinite existence, let alone a finite one, is dependent upon time. Therefore, to say that God exists outside of time is the equation of saying God does not exist, for we do not know how long God exists at all. This line of logic goes the same if God were supernatural, meaning that not only does God not exist in the dimension time, but also that God is not confined to any natural laws. The warped dilemma that follows is that if God exists in the dimension of time, but in respect to other dimensions that it is confined to, not to the dimensions that we find ourselves locked into. Scientifically then, we should be able to calculate and predict every move of God, as he is part of nature, and thus God being not so omnipotent anymore. In this case, I see no more need to consider a religious God, but rather simply some Designer(s). This then comes into a problem, that if the designer(s) knows what I will do – including my predicting of what the designer(s) is going to do – and that I know what the designer(s) will do – including their or its prediction of what I am going to do – and if this were to continue indefinitely, that is predicting the predictability of the other’s prediction and vice versa, then we get ourselves in a never ending loop, having no understanding of each other and resulting in a state of infinite regress. Such, in philosophy and logic, is the worst way to argue for the existence for a God, for this shall be indefinitely circular, and having neither end nor start to begin with.

The next argument has to do with morality and ethics. Strange as it may sound, arguments to proof the necessity for the existence for a supreme being(s) has, indeed, been done through the usage of the existence of morals and ethical belief. In this case, to prove the existence the existence of God, one has to show that morals and ethical belief cannot result from the gradual transmission and slight alteration of such ideas, or memes. In addition, in that process of proofing this evolution of ideas, that each slight or vast alteration of an idea corresponds to the history those scholars of archeology, history etc. so carefully recorded. Furthermore, the beginnings of the premature morals must have some evolutionary advantage for human primates. If these be done so, then morality need not a moral giver, as in the philosophical argument wherein morals directly are transmitted from persons, and that at the beginning a moral giver must have given these ethical laws – this having fallaciously assumed that moral laws do not change over time.

I remember that there are many other ways to proof or disproof God, but I am currently unable to remember all of them. I hope this answer to readers concerned about whether we can ever really prove God helps.