Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

How Science Proves the Existence of God – Or Atheism Is Dead

Anybody can take an introductory cellular and molecular biology class and find stunning evidence for the existence of God.

Atheists legitimize their claim that God does not exist by making the additional and erroneous claim that there is no scientific evidence for God’s existence.

Let’s put atheist legitimacy to bed and show that, courtesy of scientific evidence, atheism is dead.

Behold the following image:

Characteristics of LifeThe first characteristic of life is that it is complex and organized.

But how complex and how organized are living creatures?

The answer from science is that organization and complexity in living creatures limits out at infinity.

And what exists at the limit of infinity?

The answer is God.

Therefore, the evidence that God exists is proven by science.

And that means that atheism is dead.

Silence of Mind

,

121 responses to “How Science Proves the Existence of God – Or Atheism Is Dead”

  1. Scott Kaelen Avatar
    Scott Kaelen

    Your perception of ‘infinity’ is limited and therefore incomplete. The truth is not something science knows, but it is something science is striving towards. By its very nature, science has brought us where we are today – it’s brought us technology; it’s given us the ability to understand geology so we may predict and avoid natural disasters; it’s taken us beyond the confines of what ancient Man believed the ‘world’ to be.
    We’ve progressed from the notion that Earth was made 4,000 years ago by an invisible alien who (like a child having a tantrum) demanded global worship. That notion has evolved, through science and science alone, with absolutely zero thanks to religion, into the understanding that the ‘observable’ universe is 13.8 billion years old; a far cry from anything posited in the Bible, don’t you think? The Christian/Hebrew faith does not allow room for progress, in fact it demands eternal stagnation. Religion alone would never have brought us to the level of cosmic understanding we have achieved, and it certainly won’t help us with any future scientific findings.
    Your idea that science somehow disproves atheism is flawed, and I’ll tell you why: Yes, cosmic beings may and very probably do exist out there beyond the confines of our ken – I’m all for that, but I do not accept that everything, the entirety of existence, was created by one or more such entities. Just because our knowledge of the universe has deepened immensely (through scientific reach) that doesn’t give you as a die-hard worshipper of a theoretical deity that exists *up there* the right to expand the area that your deity allegedly created. You stick to the Bible, you stay with your God having created all that can be seen with the naked eye. Religion did not invent the telescope, for God said to not look so upon the stars but to revere them as angels, or some such nonsense. Religion did not further medical science, for if someone became ill and died it was God’s will, and to attempt to counter God’s will is sacrilege. Religion did not give us space flight, because Heaven is the realm of God and his chosen, not a place for Man to go willy-nilly.
    But the part that I as an atheist find most offensive is this: Let’s suppose for just a moment that a vastly superior entity did create this little pocket of the known universe, let’s theorise that Mankind was a part of that creation. Let’s define this creation as containing absolutely zero scientific workings whatsoever, and that it occurred because of the entity’s natural abilities. Okay, this theoretical model is set, and it looks very similar to, say, the forming of the Milky Way 13.2 billion years ago. As a believer in the natural universe and, by extension, many scientific theories of what lies beyond, I would never get down on my knees, put my hands together, bow my head and close my eyes in supplication and prayer and worship to Existence. So why does your God demand such worship, without giving even a shred of proof of its existence?
    Look, we could argue till the cows come home over whether there’s proof of God, but I’ll leave you with a quote from one of my all-time favourite authors and scientists, Isaac Asimov: “Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”

    Like

    Reply
    1. silenceofmind Avatar
      silenceofmind

      Scott,

      The atheist always and I mean always begins his argument with a logical fallacy or a false statement or a false claim.

      You began your own argument with a false claim:

      “Your perception of ‘infinity’ is limited and therefore incomplete.”

      Infinity is a concept that forms the basis of the branch of mathematics called calculus.

      Calculus is fundamental to understanding basic physics which is the foundation of science.

      Further, since human beings cannot perceive infinity, your claim is nonsense because it is irrelevant.

      We don’t need to “perceive” infinity in order to imagine it and use as the basis for science and mathematics.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Scott Kaelen Avatar
        Scott Kaelen

        Your perception of infinity *is* limited. You’re talking about infinity almost like a synonym of God. Science ‘imagines’ infinity and uses it as a basis of understanding. Religion ‘imagines’ God and uses it as a basis of creation. On the one hand we’ve got a working mathematical equation, but there are areas within and beyond the observable universe that DEFY modern models of quantum mechanics and calculus.
        The idea of infinity began as a purely philosophical concept. Only much later was it given a mathematical equation. The theories of endless space and eternal time are *still* just theories, albeit with working models that suit most areas of scientific study – but not all.
        Don’t just throw a label on something and pretend to understand it. Calling something infinite, eternal, limitless, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient DOESN’T make it so. There are levels and dimensions to existence that would boggle the minds of modern sceintists, there are as yet unexplored areas to quantum and spacial mechanics even today that scientists can not *yet* explain, such as the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall.
        You don’t know that the universe stretches out endlessly, and neither do the scientists. A Big Bang is a focal point in space, which means, by its very nature, that it can never reach infinite acceleration. It can’t bypass the speed of light in any linear way, not without involving unproven theories in spacetime distortions, but even with those theories infinity is not something that is reachable by a singular event.
        Void, on the other hand, is also not something that is entirely fathomable, and a theoretically infinite void can not simply be labelled as negative infinity.

        Like

        Reply
        1. silenceofmind Avatar
          silenceofmind

          Scott,

          We know through reason, that one of the attributes of God is that he is infinite.

          That doesn’t make him a synonym for infinity but God, by definition, is the measure of all good things.

          That is, for example, on a continuum of ugly to not so ugly to plain, to pretty to beautiful; God is infinitely beautiful.

          Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher would say that God was the “form” of beauty.

          Regarding order, that is an attribute of physical things.

          In our physical world, when infinite order happens, life happens. That is an indicator of God’s existence since God is the measure of all good things.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Scott Kaelen Avatar
            Scott Kaelen

            This is what frightens me. I’ve said it elsewhere, and often – no matter how evolved our understanding of the complex workings of the cosmos becomes, no matter how much we learn about existence, there will always be religious people who continue to claim EVERYTHING was created by their god.
            Listen to me: The Bible can not evolve. The words therein are not flexible. The Bible does not arrive at God through science, and God does not exist beyond the limits of science. There are no galactic walls or quasars or supermassive black holes within your book’s pages. You can’t just hook on to science for the ride, you know? You want God, stay within the limits dictated by ‘his’ alleged words. The fact that you’re constantly trying to reach beyond the words of the ‘one book’ in an attempt to debunk the belief by humans like myself that we don’t have to worship or have blind faith in anything… that you do this, that it also seems to be your life’s mission, is surely extremism and assaulting the boundaries of sacrilege.

            Like

            Reply
            1. silenceofmind Avatar
              silenceofmind

              Scott,

              You have proved another of my claims, that atheists reject reason. Here in your own words:

              “This is what frightens me.”

              Further there is no “my” God, “your” God or “their” God.

              That’s just another one of your falsehoods trying to pose as a fact.

              Also, my arguments are not religious but philosophical.

              You counter my philosophical expression of reasoning with religious jargon.

              That is another example of irrational thinking on the part of the atheist.

              Like

            2. Scott Kaelen Avatar
              Scott Kaelen

              Atheism isn’t the antithesis of philosophy, you know? It’s the antithesis of theism, hence it being called ‘a-theism’. You see? Atheism has as much a part in philosophy as does religion, so let’s not waste time with such piffle.
              You seem to have a fascination with searching other people’s words to find what you term as ‘falsehoods’. You say there is no ‘my, ‘your’ or ‘their’ God, and yet you capitalise ‘god’ in that sentence. Surely you know the difference between a name and a common noun? A god is a deity, of which the numerous religions of the world, both past and present, have many. ‘Your’ god is called God. There are old gods such as Odin and Zeus, there is Buddhism which doesn’t even have a god, there are religions which even worship ‘self’ and the universe. Religino is a diverse beast, it is not merely the tenets which *you* follow.
              As always it’s been fun countering your arguments, but I’ve got a life to lead today and the floor won’t clean itself. Adieu.

              Like

          2. william Avatar
            william

            what makes you think god is infinite?

            how do you know that god is the measure of all good things?

            what do you mean by “infinite order?” that order is everywhere all the time, or that “order” will go on forever, or something else?

            Like

            Reply
            1. silenceofmind Avatar
              silenceofmind

              William,

              In order for God to create everything he must necessarily be all-power, all-knowing and infinite.

              Like

            2. william Avatar
              william

              …or just having more power and more knowledge than what he creates…

              Leonardo was a great inventor, but i don’t think he lived longer than the the typical man who created less.

              why does creating everything dictate that the creator be all-anything?

              I realize that christians traditionally think that god is all-everything and infinite, but is there some external source that makes this assertion as well?

              Like

            3. silenceofmind Avatar
              silenceofmind

              William,

              From our viewpoint, the universe is everything.

              That means God has to have the power and the knowledge to create everything.

              Consequently, God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

              Like

            4. william Avatar
              william

              but since our view point is limited, how can we know the universe is everything?

              I still don’t see how the universe means that its creator (if it had one) would be all-everything and infinite.

              This doesnt seem to be taking simple logical steps like 2 plus 2, therefore 4. Instead, it looks like universe plus “x”, therefore “eternal god.” It seems like a leap to me.

              You could be right, but i do not see the necessary progression from universe to eternal, all-knowing, all-present, prefect god.

              I can get “creator(s).” But why would a creator have to be perfect and infinite? why couldn’t he/she/they/it just be more advanced than us, but still limited?

              again, I’m not sure that “the universe is big, therefore there is an eternal god” is a thorough enough answer – it’s certainly short of an exploitation, eh?

              Are you a deist or a christian or some other variety, and what led you to you particular faith?

              Like

            5. silenceofmind Avatar
              silenceofmind

              William,

              We know about our universe through modern science.

              Like

            6. william Avatar
              william

              we do know much more about the universe today then ever before through modern science, but i’m still not sure that necessarily means “god” and that if it did, i dont see where that points to a specific one or set.

              are you christian or a form of deist?

              Like

  2. Scott Kaelen Avatar
    Scott Kaelen

    You said, “The answer from science is that organization and complexity in living creatures limits out at infinity. And what exists at the limit of infinity? The answer is God.”
    Your claim, rather than debunking atheism, actually debunks the idea that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity could possibly exist. You have actually toppled the concept of God.
    You, by your very words, have given infinity a limit. But more importantly, you have given “the complexity of living creatures” a limit, and you have equated that with the focus of your chosen belief system—if a living creature can reach, by evolution, infinite complexity (therefore achieving the status of what Man thinks of as a god) then such a living creature is, by your very definition, God. It is, by extension of the argument, infinitely conveivable that Man itself, given infinite time and space, could evolve into your definition of God.
    But such talk is surely sacrilege, no? Man could never be God. How arrogant.
    Now, while I agree that matter and energy can reach extremely high states of existence, and that time can bend and twist and stretch to heretofore unrealised boundaries, nevertheless infinity remains nothing more than a mathematical equation, albeit one which has helped and continues to help strengthen our scientific understanding. It is not an absolute in practice, only in theory, and therefore holds as much weight as the God Theory.

    Like

    Reply
    1. silenceofmind Avatar
      silenceofmind

      Scott,

      We know from 2500 years of the Western Heritage that God is self-evident, that is, his is existence is knowable through reason.

      Since modern science is also based on reason, it is no surprise that science would also lead to the existence of God.

      Atheism is a rejection of our Western Heritage which makes it a rejection of reason and of modern science.

      Your statement: “Your claim, rather than debunking atheism, actually debunks the idea that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity could possibly exist,”

      is yet another example of an atheist making a false statement.

      You took a true statement and by your own authority, declared it false.

      Only atheists do that anymore. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle would have called you a sophist.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Scott Kaelen Avatar
        Scott Kaelen

        You have avoided everything else I’ve said in each lengthy comment and concentrated on only one small line from each. I am entirely unsurprised.
        You, sir, are very much my polar opposite. There is no god at the end of the rainbow. There are no infinitely unknowable entities out there that deserve our devotion and worship, regardless of whether they ever bothered to give us proof of their existence and their role in our creation or not. Worship, my friend, is not something I do; in fact, the whole spectrum of religion – fear, faith, worship, unquestioning devotion – sickens me to the bone.

        Like

        Reply
        1. silenceofmind Avatar
          silenceofmind

          Scott,

          I have not avoided your comments.

          My tactic is to attack your first premise, usually found in the first sentence or two of a paragraph.

          I have shown that your first premises are always false.

          Since your first premise is always false, everything that comes after your first premise is also false.

          That’s how logical reasoning works.

          You are an atheist so you haven’t the foggiest idea how reason works.

          You think things are true simply because you think they are true.

          To the atheist, truth is nothing more than the result of personal opinion.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Scott Kaelen Avatar
            Scott Kaelen

            You are a God-fearer, as such you haven’t the foggiest idea how logic works.
            You think God exists simply because you think he exists.
            To the God-fearer, truth is nothing more than that which does not conflict with belief.

            Thank you.

            Like

            Reply
            1. silenceofmind Avatar
              silenceofmind

              Scott,

              I have used the philosophy of the Plato (a pagan philosopher from 2500 years ago) to discuss the attributes of, and reasoning concerning, God.

              Therefore you made yet another false claim:

              “You think God exists simply because you think he exists.”

              You either aren’t reading my comments or you haven’t the foggiest idea what I’m talking about.

              The reason atheism is so wacky is that I can sit here and prove that each one of your claims is false and you blithely continue on to the next false claim.

              Atheism is false because it is based on false claims. And all atheist arguments are false for the same reason.

              You are prove of that.

              Like

  3. God-Fearer Tries To Debunk Atheism By Using Infinity | Scott Kaelen Avatar
    God-Fearer Tries To Debunk Atheism By Using Infinity | Scott Kaelen

    […] is a link to the original blog […]

    Like

    Reply
  4. larryzb Avatar
    larryzb

    I, too, have done some sparring with atheists in recent years. They are not always open minded.

    God is the immortal King supreme (from the Vedic philosophy).

    Like

    Reply
    1. charles Avatar
      charles

      Speaking for myself only here, of course, but I am much more open-minded now as a skeptic than I ever was as a Christian. In fact, I’m 100% sure that I’m open-minded and nothing you can say will sway me that I am not open-minded! Oh, wait…

      Like

      Reply
      1. silenceofmind Avatar
        silenceofmind

        Charles,

        Not only are you open-minded and exceedingly modest about your giftedness, but you sound like you’re an across the boarder of genius, genius!

        Like

        Reply
  5. charles Avatar
    charles

    The answer from math is that infinity has degrees… There are sets that are countably infinite. There are also sets that are uncountably infinite. Also, look up “aleph.” Not sure if that impacts you definition of God or not.

    While I find your definition of God interesting, I don’t find it all that helpful. Does this God you posit interact with humans? Has it spoken to humans? Does it require anything of humans? Based on what you have asserted about the definition of God, I’m not sure you are any further along than you would be by just saying “I don’t know.” You are left to make up stuff about what life means, and why you should act in a certain way and not another.

    Perhaps I misunderstood your definition.

    Like

    Reply
    1. silenceofmind Avatar
      silenceofmind

      Charles,

      Just as a cigar is sometimes only a cigar, sometimes infinity just goes on forever.

      The concept of infinity used here is the concept of infinite used in beginning calculus on the topic of limits.

      Science can’t address the personal nature of God. That is reserved for religion.

      Like

      Reply
    2. charles Avatar
      charles

      “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.” (or, you are just not expressing yourself precisely enough)

      Infinity is the number which is greater than every other number. It doesn’t go on forever. The thing approaching infinite goes on forever, and never reaches infinite.

      In calculus, we can write
      lim as n -> \inf of f(n) = z
      or
      lim as x -> 1 of 1 / (x-1) = \inf

      In the first case, n is approaching infinite, and f(n) is approaching z.
      In the second case, 1/(x-1) is approaching infinite.
      What does this actually mean? For every epsilon > 0, there exists a delta > 0 such that … etc. The usual way of proving a statement involving a limit.

      “what exists at the limit of infinity?”
      Besides the fact that this is not very precisely worded… the correct answer is “I don’t know and you don’t either.”
      You seem to be calling “I don’t know”, “God”. Why? How does that help?

      Why should there necessarily be anything that is infinitely complex? If you are going to get anywhere with this definition, and convincingly assert that you have proved the existence of God, you need to define “complex”, and explain why there is no limit to it.

      “Atheists legitimize their claim that God does not exist by making the additional and erroneous claim that there is no scientific evidence for God’s existence.”
      You haven’t provided any scientific evidence. You have made two conjectures. First, that complexity can be infinite. Second, that infinite complexity = God.

      “Science can’t address the personal nature of God. That is reserved for religion.”
      How can you say you have proved the existence of God when you haven’t defined God? Well, you sort of defined God, but its kind of a tautology. You picked something difficult to comprehend (infinite complexity) and called it God.

      Maybe I am misunderstanding you completely. I’m just giving you the thoughts that came to my mind when I read your post, and your reply to my post.

      Like

      Reply
  6. Larry B of larrysmusings.com Avatar
    Larry B of larrysmusings.com

    We did an essay (actually more than one) that treats of atheism and atheists. We share this link for those interested. It supplements the above essay.

    http://larrysmusings.com/2013/02/14/atheism-versus-agnosticism/

    Like

    Reply
  7. MustardSeedBudget.wordpress.com Avatar
    MustardSeedBudget.wordpress.com

    Hi Silence, I see you joined a discussion thread that I think I started on some atheist’s blog. In any case, you made some salient points, but I would like to recommend a humbler use of language. I think and hope atheists will come to Christ when they get their own revelation about God. In the meantime, if I use mocking language, I may only anger them further and drive them further away from God. I don’t mean to suggest you said anything wrong, but something about your tone seem to hit me that I could possibly suggest a less accusatorial. Sorry again. Maybe it’s none of my business. But I suggest to all my fellow Christians that we tone down the rhetoric. Let’s not flare up. Let the atheists do that. Hope this helps. Sorry, I didn’t know where to post to you, so I wrote here.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Brent Arnesen Avatar
    Brent Arnesen

    By that definition of a “Living Thing” it means God is not Living. Neither is Jesus… nor any individual (since individuals don’t evolve, species do).. Odd how that works…
    Another example of Christians knowing more about their feelings than actual science.

    Like

    Reply
    1. silenceofmind Avatar
      silenceofmind

      Brent,

      God is infinite while we are finite.

      Therefore, God’s existence is different than ours.

      It is a logical fallacy to compare apples and oranges the way you have compared God’s infinite existence with our finite existence.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Larry B of larrysmusings.com Avatar
        Larry B of larrysmusings.com

        According to the Vedas, we (our souls) are God’s marginal energy and can exist on either the material plane of this earth, or in the spiritual universe. Qualitatively, our souls are like God’s – but quantitatively, He is infinite mystic power and we are infinitesimal.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Brent Arnesen Avatar
          Brent Arnesen

          Sounds like woo. Why can only those who believe in God make up things about God and think it sounds profound? You know, the concept of God is public domain. Theists aren’t the only ones who can wax on about infinite, invisible magical beings.

          Like

          Reply
        2. silenceofmind Avatar
          silenceofmind

          Larry,

          You may have noticed, but I don’t quote scripture to atheists.

          A basic understanding of God can be attained through reason so that is the approach I use when conversing with atheists.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Brent Arnesen Avatar
            Brent Arnesen

            Silence, are you a follower of Sye Ten Bruggentate (sp?)? Seems so.

            Like

            Reply
            1. silenceofmind Avatar
              silenceofmind

              Brent,

              I don’t know Bruggentate.

              God is infinite by definition.

              We know that because to create everything requires that God be infinite, all-knowing and all-powerful.

              Like

            2. Brent Arnesen Avatar
              Brent Arnesen

              ‘God is x by definition”. I can put anything in there, call it an attribute of God and not care if it actually maps to reality, can’t I? e.g., “God is misogynistic/loving/infinite/ground of being/etc, by definition.”
              My problem is you make these claims about attributes of a Being you refuse to demonstrate if it actually exists.

              Like

            3. silenceofmind Avatar
              silenceofmind

              Brent,

              Words mean things.

              The tendency of atheists to redefine everything to suit the atheist dogma or deny the simple definition of well-known words makes a rational discussion impossible.

              If the atheist is able to redefine reality at, then he is unable to learn what reality means.

              Like

            4. Brent Arnesen Avatar
              Brent Arnesen

              Words mean things because of agreement of usage. The word “mouse” only means the rodent when the usage applies. What you call “reality” is your version of reality based on your presuppositions. Stop blaming atheists for your inability to prove your beliefs.

              Like

            5. silenceofmind Avatar
              silenceofmind

              Brent,

              The definition of God that I am using was developed 2500 years ago.

              Like

            6. Brent Arnesen Avatar
              Brent Arnesen

              So? How does that mean anything? Is that an Argumentum ad Antiquim? What is your definition of God? How do you define something infinite?

              Like

      2. Brent Arnesen Avatar
        Brent Arnesen

        1. You didn’t say “infinite vs infinite”, You gave a definition of “Living Things”.
        2. “God is infinite”: Says you. Prove it. Have you verified this with God?
        3. if God is infinite, the you and I are God, too…. Which means God isn’t Omniscient, since I don’t know I am God.

        Like

        Reply
  9. Mortem Fide Avatar
    Mortem Fide

    Wow, and I thought you were just being difficult on my posts. You appear to be incredibly closed-minded with regard to the thoughts or opinions of anyone else. You also appear to think your intro-level science courses have somehow transformed you into an expert.

    Your arguments from science are ad hoc. Not only that, but you are making a cardinal scientific error by beginning with an a priori assumption of God’s existence. This isn’t how scientific inquiry works.

    Now, I’ll admit I’m not a scientist. I’m an historian. But, my interest in science and belief in the importance of interdisciplinary studies lends itself to some knowledge of the scientific realm. I understand how empirical research works; it appears you do not.

    Your statement about infinity means absolutely nothing. I know you say your professor liked your logic, but none of us here have any reason to believe that’s true. Do you attend a Christian university, by chance? Are you actively working with creationists to thwart real scientific inquiry by positing ad hoc arguments deduced through questionable means?

    Regardless, my issue lies not with you, but with your poorly constructed and poorly supported arguments. You clearly do not understand Evolutionary Theory or you would never try to posit something as inane as “creatures are complex, thus God exists.”

    Your arguments would be much stronger if you even attempted to support them instead of merely making assertions as if they are already irrefutable fact.

    Like

    Reply
Older Comments
1 2

Leave a comment