When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes

When looking at everything from a purely mathematical perspective, knowing order does not come from chaos (Big Bang).

Here are some well known and widely accepted scientists and their comments on God.

The quotes



Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

I just happen to agree with these BRILLIANT people...

To pick one of these is the Fallacy of the False Alternative.

How life began and evolved is now beyond scientific debate. Science has conclusively explained the process. Your question here can be answered in any book written after the 1950s dealing with the subject.

Even if we did not know the answer, to posit a god as the answer does not solve the ultimate question of who created the god?

To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who, then, created god? Was there an earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress, the very dilemma the positing of a god was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally, then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?

In other words, once one grasps that the concept and necessity that of something that always existed but was not brought into existence, one has overthrown the need for the concept of god and can recognize that the universe has existed eternally.

All of this is rather silly when you have not yet even provided an intelligible definition of your god.

Faith in Christ is the center of Christianity. The seemingly altruistic nature is played up by those promoting marxism. As I see it giving to someone in need can be a good thing but its not altruistic if I get something in return. You may not place any value in what I receive but I do. Secondly Christians should be discerning in their actions. Help those that need it but are not making a habit of needing,. 2 Thessalonians 3; if they wont work don't feed them.

Of course, a religious person cannot take the Oath and maintain his or her integrity as the Oath is the absolute denial of altruism, the basis of virtually all religion. If one can't take the Oath, they exclude themselves. If a religious person does take the Oath, they are essentially lying to us and we should exclude them. That's a long-winded way of saying NO.

Requires a different topic or set of messages directly. You pick one from this post, and I will take the time to write up a very detailed explanation "in context."

Would you please provide an example that we can discuss? Stating that something has "not been written right" is an assertion that requires explication.

This question has been resolved. For a complete understanding of the error committed here, I refer you to any standard book on cognition and critical thinking, including David Kelley’s “Art of Reasoning.” Others would include:
LaBossiere, Michael (2012-07-17). 76 Fallacies. Kindle Edition; Bennett, Bo (2013-11-20). Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition or Kindle);

Robert Carroll present a good example: “Don’t accept something as true just because you can’t prove it’s false. And don’t think something is false just because it hasn’t been proven true. The expression argumentum ad ignorantiam (usually translated from the Latin as argument to ignorance) was apparently first used by the philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) to describe a debater’s tactic:”

Carroll, Robert (2013-11-08). The Critical Thinker's Dictionary: Biases, Fallacies, and Illusions and What You Can Do About Them (Kindle Locations 1074-1078). . Kindle Edition.

Lack of evidence is proof of nothing.

Or, as Branden put it: “The absence of knowledge in any subject does not constitute a basis for inventing arbitrary theories and groundless explanations. An absence cannot be a basis for anything. The fact that something is unknown does not give you license to substitute invention for inquiry and will not transform the products of your invention into knowledge. Nor can you invert logic to the point of claiming that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. One must be able to prove that something is possible.”

I have not said "there is no god." I have said I do not believe in god. The reason I do not believe in god is simple: (1) and (2) above.

I hope you get to follow up the mechanical work with a Very Thorough test drive!

Since when do you have to sign up to a set of religious or social conventions to be free ? Go be yourself, you don't have to hide what you believe in, what is important is that you don't force people to give you unearned resources.

I am a "Galt guy" ... and "private Christian" so do what you want ... don't hurt anyone ... don't ruthlessly take anything from anyone without compensation. Don't judge anyone's motives or the outcome of their actions. The 9th Amendment makes most things legal ... the 10th Amendment allows the states (the "State") to deny those rights. ........... Me? I'll side with the 9th ... and organize my life around those who see things my way, my own personal 10th Amendment (my own "state" ... small "s" ... In my private time I'll worship God as I see fit. You do the same ... or not ... be well.

I find it fascinating, and revealing about the facts which underlie
the stories which I have been taught. . more to come;;; film at eleven!!! -- j
.

don't bother me with the facts, in other words. . well said, Teri!!! -- j
.

Yes, no Christians are Obj.ists by definition.
Obj.ists cannot benefit from discussion of religion; but all can benefit from rational communications.

the love within my Christian company is for life and the self, with pride
modified by humility and partial self-denial aimed at the improvement
of the group. . Yes, our country was built on rational selfishness, etc.
PLUS the wisdom involved in experience-seasoned teamwork in
defending the unalienable rights which we find inherent in our nature.
calling the source of our human nature Divine Providence was
shorthand for "we don't know how it got here, but we are sure
that this is the real human nature." . translation::: high confidence. . imho. -- j
.

The issue is an intelligible definition. I asked for “an intelligible definition of god.” Each of these: 1)All-powerful, 2)All-knowing, and 3) good are not intelligible.

The omnipotent characteristic is internally impossible, example, can it tie a knot it cannot untie.

The omniscient characteristic contradicts the attribute of omnipotence. In order for god to know everything (which includes the future), everything would have to be predetermined. If everything were predetermined, the future can not be changed. If things cannot be changed, then this is a limit on the god’s power and it is not omnipotent.

The good characteristic means it is incapable of evil. This is not intelligible because, for example, if it is incapable of evil how can it be omnipotent?

All of which means, while these are common characteristics assigned to the definition of a god, then are not intelligible, by which I mean understandable without being in conflict with one or more characteristics assigned.

Remember man is tabula rasa and has no innate or intrinsic ideas. Aristotle and Aquinas both agreed that the political system men ought to have depended on their nature. Human nature is defined in Metaphysics Epistemology and ethics which are concepts prior to Libertarianism which is a political concept. Since both Objectivists and Christians can agree that liberty is a political primary necessary to fit their conception of man, it leaves Libertarians without a metaphysics as lost in the conceptual world above politics. So Libertarians argue from liberty to their views not to liberty from their higher views of man. That is why Objectivists are not Libertarians because Objectivists come with a metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics which necessitate liberty. They can answer the question why liberty not consequentially but logically. Deists like Jefferson could arrive at liberty from individual sovereignty and free will. Both of Which Rand derives logically from axioms and in support I derive from science.

your answer implies that objectivists cannot benefit from discussion
about welcoming Christians to the gulch. . are you implying that
there are no Christians who are also objectivists? -- j
.

the idea which prompted me to ask the gulch this question did not
involve belief in untestable things. . it did, however, involve the use
of the word "faith" to categorize the unknown about which you
might have confidence based on partial knowledge.
I have faith, for example, that guiding my personal actions
positively in relation to others, what I call the 51 percent rule,
is wise. . I do not know that, in the long run, it is wise to grant
the next Joe I meet that small benefit of the doubt, but I bet
that it is. -- j
.

I borrow from Richard Dawkins to say, religions puzzle me with their power to subvert otherwise intelligent minds and turn them in directions that an outside observer (and under normal circumstances, the subverted mind itself) would instantly recognize as ridiculous. The video link is interesting, especially because sit deals with the eye. As you may know, mammal eyes have a terrible structure. No competent designer would ever build an eye in such a terrible way.

Then you ask “Who can possibly create such a thing and not be GOD?”

The word “who” presupposes you have an answer. A more proper question would be phrased as “How was such a thing created?”

The essence of what I hear you saying is you do not know how the animal evolved, therefore it must be God. This question is known as the Argument from Ignorance. The fallacy is the absence of evidence is proof of nothing. At best, it means we don't now know enough to make a judgment. Such ignorance cannot be transmuted into knowledge of a god or anything else. However, in fact, how animals evolved is now known.

You might want to watch Dawkins (I think it was about 1991 before scientists used DNA as much as they do now) BBC program “Growing Up In The Universe.” This series of programs was designed for children to explain the very question you ask. https://richarddawkins.net/ or read Lecture Four of the Basic Principles of Objectivism (now in print as the “Legacy of Ayn Rand”) or a simple Google search.

Even granting you do not understand how the animal evolved to what it is today, as I mentioned above, before one can assert the words or works of a god, one must present (1) an intelligible definition of the god and (2) adduce evidence to support its existence. No one has ever presented me with (1), so we never got to (2). Your pointing to a video of a life form does not address the question. Before your god can create life, you must establish there is a god. So far, you have not attempted (1). Maybe you can figure out what you believe in and explain it to me. Nobody else has and I look forward to it.

your last sentence gives me pause, Michael . . . . there is a slippery
slope there. . others can project responsibilities onto you because
of your rights -- dangerously. . I have had fun, as most of us have,
in using tax preparation software to try to defend myself from the
tentacles of others who want my dollars because -- in their view --
they have given me the right to life in the u.s. . and there also are
those who use my tax money to buy opposition votes, because
they gave me the right to vote. . many other examples are
available. . interesting and dangerous duality, imho. -- j
.

Perhaps....
But he also said that anyone who wants to go to heaven needed to follow him. And, to follow him you needed to give up worldly possessions, etc...
But, you may be right. I am no expert, I used to know the Bible very well, but it has been many years since.