I am looking for some info on how science “Proves” Gods existence. I have a relative that is trying to convince us that science disproves Gods existence. I have seen it around before but forget where the info is. Thanks in advance.
You’d be better off trying to refute their actual argument, which is probably silly. What is their argument? i.e., how are they saying “science disproves God”?
Well, St Thomas Aquinas had his Summa Theologicae that listed the five ways to prove God exists (motion, efficient causes, possibility and necessity, gradation of being, and argument of design).
I think Einstein proved that God exists too (google it) and I’m sure if you just google your subject, you will find many other proofs that God exists and science proves it.
The natural sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, etc) can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, because God is not natural (he is supernatural, ie, beyond natural).
Philosophy can be used to demonstrate that God exists. KD8TZC mentioned the “five classic proofs” of St. Thomas Aquinas, which are philosophical proofs.
Some people suppose that, if you can explain something scientifically (ie, how something works) then you “disprove” God. The Big Bang is one such idea - if we can explain Creation scientifically (and we cannot) then we “prove” that God didn’t cause it. Of course, it proves nothing of the kind - it would only tell us HOW God accomplished Creation (if we ever figure it out, which we have not done).
Thanks for the info, it helps and it was what I was looking for.
Scripture: Romans 1:20
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
Tradition: Catechism of the Catholic Church
By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works.
Starting from creation, that is from the world and from the human person, through reason alone one can know God with certainty as the origin and end of the universe, as the highest good and as infinite truth and beauty. [Compendium]
Read the encyclical on the relationship between Faith and Reason by St. John Paul II: Fides et Ratio
Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.
Philosophy and the sciences function within the order of natural reason; while faith, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes in the message of salvation the “fullness of grace and truth” (cf. Jn 1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively through his Son, Jesus Christ.
As theology is the study of God, science is the study of God’s works. Trying to use science to disprove the existence of God is like trying to use bear tracks to prove that bears don’t exist!
Trying say God doesn’texist can be equated to walking down the railway tracks chanting "I don’t believe in trains! Once the train gets there all the chanting in the world is not going to make a lot of difference.
And oddly enough, some phenomena that the new atheists claim “disprove” God (such as the Big Bang) were originally opposed by science as being “too religious/creationist”. Because, of course, if the universe has a beginning, then it must have come from something. And because the scientist who first theorized the Big Bang was a Catholic priest.
By the way, the majority of scientists (even today) are quite religious. Some of the best scientists in the world, even today, are Jesuit priests and Dominican friars. So there is no disconnect between being a faithful Catholic and accepting (or even pursuing) scientific discovery. And this is why the Catholic Church sees the Creationism-scientism debate as a false dichotomy. We, as Catholics, believe everything was created by God. However, science allows us to understand the majesty of God’s creation better and continue to be amazed by it.
Mention has been made of the Big Bang. At a certain point, if the theory is true, time began. Somewhat more than 13 billion years ago, all this is supposed to have started.
Nothing in time could have caused it because there was no time before the existence of time.
What people have known forever in some form or other is that God exists. God is not someone in time. He exists eternally and is the Cause of the universe, as it exists in all time.
Alternatively, the universe could have started spontaneously: there is absolutely nothing, no space, no time, no being and then there is. This sounds pretty weird to most people.
People who don’t believe in God, thinking the possibility absurd, ironically, seem to believe in the impossible.
Einstein said that if something moves there was a prime Mover. The Stars and planets move. Who was the prime mover?
That was St. Thomas Aquinas. It’s one of his five classic philosophical proofs (and I think it’s the best of the five).
If there was not a prime mover, the universe must have created itself (which is logically impossible).
Correct. Christians (and Jews) believe that God made everything from nothing (no pre-existing primordial matter, as many others believed). Scientists just laughed at our naivety. Now they agree that the universe sprang into existence in an event lasting less than 10[sup]-38[/sup] seconds (an incomprehensibly brief time), and it all sprang from nothing (a zero-dimensional, zero-mass singularity, which is as close to “nothing” as we can understand). During this epoch, the laws of physics as we understand them did not exist - somehow, creation acquired order.
That’s not all. Ordinary matter and energy make up less than five percent of the mass/energy of the universe. Scientists now account for the missing matter/energy with the idea of “dark matter” and “dark energy,” which possibly cannot be directly observed by any scientific experiment we could devise, but we can observe their effects (gravity).
Scientists are quite willing to believe in something they can’t directly observe as long as they can put enough equations around it.
This is a pretty interesting video godtube.com/watch/?v=FJ0J0JNU
I would far rather take a pill or undergo a procedure or operate a device designed by people whose attitude is “I’ll believe in the theory which most adequately explains the data” than I would take a pill or undergo a procedure or operate a device designed by people whose attitude is “I know what is true, and so I just have to find an explanation which asserts that”.
Is it, or is it the study of what humans think about God? It never seemed to me that the alleged object of study was very cooperative about showing up to be analysed.
I have to agree that science can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence. The realm of science deals purely with natural and material objects and laws. Physics for example studies the relation between matter and energy. Chemistry deals with matter and its composition. Biology deals with life in general. All of which can be observed and quantified. However, no scientist can measure or observe God because a spirit cannot be observed like matter. Furthermore, science only shows us facts. It’s up to us to draw our conclusions from them. Although, scientists also draw conclusions from the facts by making frameworks which can adequately explain the facts called theories. The sad thing is that many people seem to think that if there is a God, the laws of nature would be broken often to accommodate them and their needs and wants. However, if God made the laws of nature then it makes sense that He would let them do their course even if this results in natural calamities.
So, I suppose you would have avoided aspirin until Robert Vane discovered its mechanism in 1971 (he would go on to win a Nobel Prize in 1982 for his discovery).
In 1763, Edward Stone of Wadham College, Oxford University discovered that an extract from the bark of a willow tree was effective in treating many ailments. But he did not know why. He just knew it was true, and humanity has benefited from his discovery for two and a half centuries.
Aspirin did not change in 1971. It worked before Vane’s discovery, and it continues to work today. It would work even if Vane had never discovered its mechanism.
No, I would not: as Stone himself said, he found “by experience” that the concoction was efficacious, having tried it on the basis of a hypothesis. His method was (simplistically) empirical; he was not merely asserting an a priori conclusion.
I wouldn’t say that forever and ever science will have nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God, but I think that at this juncture we are fortunate simply to have science that is mathematically consistent enough to reject wrong approaches by generating mathematical and physical nonsense. I don’t think our physics (or any other science for that matter) is sophisticated enough to accept or reject such things as a Divine Presence or All-Knowing Creator.
For us, at this point in history (and maybe forever), we simply have to have Faith. Much of what passes for philosophy on this forum seems to revolve around bypassing our need for Faith. I am as guilty of this as the next person in that I want to experience angels and I often look for people’s angelic encounters here, but I really think that there is no getting around Faith.