Scientific Proof of God's Existence?

Many thanks to Dan Vander Lugt.

Is it inconsistent, as Richard Dawkins claims, for believers in God to look for scientific explanations of natural things, if they don’t think it is necessary to seek scientific proof of God’s existence?

Because the natural world has been created and designed by God, it reflects His power and divine nature (Rm 1:20). However, God is of an entirely different order of being. He is not physical, but Spirit, of a higher dimension of being that encompasses our universe but which cannot be directly observed and measured by the physical sciences.

But if God can’t be directly investigated by physical science, are there no compelling reasons to believe that He exists? Someone with a naïve faith in evolution might say there are no compelling reasons, but more objective scientists acknowledge that the rational basis for God’s existence is being continually strengthened as science progresses.

Even if it could be demonstrated at some future time that evolution is a seamless natural process with no “gaps” where God can be demonstrated to supernaturally intervene, atheists have to account for the components and circumstances that make the process possible. Physicists who believe in the probability of God’s existence don’t do so because of gaps in evolutionary theory, but because of the mind-boggling, overwhelming complexity of the circumstances within which natural macroevolution would have to occur.

One of the most startling developments to come from modern physics is that the universe, in some very fundamental way, seems to have been “designed” or “tuned” to produce life and consciousness. Actually, what physicists have discovered is that there are a large number of “coincidences” inherent in the fundamental laws and constants of nature. Every one of these coincidences or specific relationships between fundamental physical parameters is needed, or the evolution of life and consciousness as we know it could not have happened. The collection of these coincidences is an undisputed fact and, collectively, have come to be known as the “Anthropic Principle.” (From the essay, “The Holistic Anthropic Principle,” by Joseph P. Provenzano and Dan R. Provenzano.)

The fact that circumstances of such infinite, or nearly infinite, complexity exist as the necessary background to life implies design. It’s hard to see how Dawkins and other atheists consider it more reasonable to believe that the infinite complexity of the natural world is rooted in chance.

The existence of randomness as part of the process of evolution within the space/time universe is not evidence against design. Randomness itself appears to be an aspect of the design, making possible the development of self-aware, free beings (such as we are). Thus the existence of randomness and freedom within the context of natural law imply a much higher order of complexity than a mere “clockwork universe.”

So it isn’t unreasonable to believe in God, even if we can’t “explain” or “define” Him in scientific terms. The choices are to either take the mind-boggling complexity of a universe containing self-aware beings as mere accident, or to assume that the complexity we see within and around us is evidence of a supernatural God.

View source.

more on Plan B

On 25 August 2007, approximately 11 months prior to my previous entry, my good friend and I had a discussion on Love's Plan B dilemma. I asked him to explain his point of view as a male who was having a relationship.

In his words, answering whether a man would keep maintaining and assessing alternatives despite having an exclusive partner:

Agree to some degree, because we use logic more than feelings. It seems logical. But I also disagree because sometimes, we already choose from the beginning.

Usually we collect as many possibilities as possible, then narrow down to a single choice, sometimes even with Plan B and Plan C. That's true.

But in choosing a [lifetime] partner it can be different. Some men just know because they also involve feelings and prayers. Logic may not work here.

For intelligent men and women, one of the greatest challenges is to surrender our logic and fully believe in God. That's why we should first seek his will.

My friend was married a few months after that late night chat. He boasts a transformed physique to prove his happy marriage. Once an underweight skeleton resemblance, he is now a healthy looking man, with baby-like chubby cheeks.

Love's Plan B

These days I wake up with a relief – I am free
There were days when I was only an alternative
Manipulated, waiting in silent agony while he with guile
Enjoyed waters from different cisterns
How foolish I was to believe love should be abusive

Love’s Plan B
By Nando Pelusi, Ph.D. for Psychology Today, August 2008

This article is not available online. Excerpts:

Although we may love our exclusive partner, we can still think about other romantic possibilities – people we keep in a mental box that might as well be labeled “Open in case of current relationship’s demise.” No matter how content we are, we still seek a sense of security by creating a web of potential future romantic alliances. That’s why people are hardly shocked to hear that a sizable percentage of men trawling online dating sites are married.

Joshua Duntley, an assistant professor of psychology at Stockton College in New Jersey, uses the term “backup mates” to describe the Plan B partners. Duntley has surveyed college students on their tendency to keenly monitor the availability and social circumstances of other potential paramours. Backup partners are not merely short-term mates – someone with whom we have a fling. The backup mate is a man or woman who is viable as a serious partner in his or her own right. Men reported getting more upset when a desirable backup mate found another partner then when a short-term mate did so.

Our quest for love insurance takes many forms. When in a relationship, we may casually flirt with someone to whom we’re only mildly attracted, just to assess whether we’ve still got the stuff. But more often, the goal of a flirtation is to determine whether the other person is a viable partner, should the primary train go off-track.

For many in search of a runner-up partner, there’s a woman or man who knows they’re “it” (ie. the backup partner). Women are more often the ones waiting in the wings. This is in part a reflection of women’s generally high standards for mates. Many women gamble on the possibility of a (perceived) stellar mate, as opposed to the certainty of a man who is subpar.

Whether you’re a man or woman, the problem with being a backup is that once your inamorata labels you second tier, your chances of becoming the primary love interest diminish. Labels, once created, tend to stick. Plus, once you accept the role of runner-up, you risk seeing yourself as a perennial backup in many walks of life. You can find someone for whom you’re Plan A – but not if you’re inertly functioning as someone else’s Plan B.

What to do with a Plan B relationship:

• Throw yourself into your primary relationship.
• Cast a vote of confidence in your relationship by publicly proclaiming it. Public pronouncements carry social power.
• Desire for a perfect mate may keep you assessing prospects – but don’t confuse this inclination with a lack of basic satisfaction with your extant mate.
• Smile, relax, and actively love your mate as he or she is. Those who act lovingly start feeling more love.

If you’re left waiting in the wings:

• Limit the amount you’re willing to wait – and stick to your deadline for a resolution. Enlist a friend to monitor your progress.
• Accept the short-term hassles of moving on, and embrace the options you have been forgoing.
• Throw down an ultimatum: Only a showdown will get things moving.
• If within your time period, say, three months – the person does not make you their primary mate, focus on new opportunities.