(since I'm around, I thought I'd make a little contribution)

" An independent argument to prove directly the existence of God is the following... "

I've read this argument many times but I think it's not only flawed, it's naive. If we detect mathematical patterns when we observe the universe, it's absolutely impossible to know if those mathematical patterns really exist in the universe or if they exist only in our perception. That is, if our thinking is ruled by math and logic at some fundamental level, it would be impossible for us not to perceive the world as being also ruled by math and logic.

That is not to say the universe really isn't mathematical. So long as we agree to call "the universe" that which we are capable of perceiving, or logical deductions based on those perceptions, then ultimately there is no difference between the nature of the perceived universe and the nature of the perceiving mind. But this isomorphism between physical and mental comes with a price: if your conception of the universe is created by your own mind, then there's no room for God in it, unless you are ready to conclude you are God.

The bottom line is, our knowledge of physics doesn't imply the existence of God. In fact, nothing that can be objectively known implies the existence of a supreme deity which can't, by definition, be objectively known. As a consequence, it is impossible to prove the existence of God by any means. The only way to know about God's existence is by revelation; any other concept of God can be shown to be nothing more than a cheap rhetorical device.

• Physics may imply a supernatural medium - yanniru - February 11, 2005 - 23:08 UTC
  • The consensus of physicists - wandaqueen - February 16, 2005 - 14:09 UTC
    • Blow the man down - yanniru - February 21, 2005 - 00:56 UTC
• Your counter argument is inconsistent - marcobiagini - November 3, 2005 - 13:04 UTC