Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Egnor: Here’s why an argument for God’s existence is a scientific argument

Categories
Atheism
Intelligent Design
Science
theism
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The form of reasoning and the type of evidence accepted is the same as with Newton’s theories or Darwin’s, he says.

Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne took after someone writing at the Deseret News who argues that faith and science both play a role in fighting COVID-19. Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is (we could have called this one) not impressed:

An objection commonly raised is that “scientific theories can only involve the natural world and cannot demonstrate the existence of supernatural entities.” But that’s incorrect. The Big Bang, to take an example, was not an event in the natural world. It was a singularity, which means that it is undefined and undefinable both mathematically and in conventional physics. Similarly, a cosmological singularity — for example, a black hole — is also a supernatural entity. That just means it is outside of nature. We never observe black holes just as we never can observe the Big Bang. We can only infer — by inductive reasoning — the existence of supernatural entities such as black holes by their effects in the natural world.

This inductive reasoning is precisely what proofs of God’s existence do. We cannot observe God in this life because he is not part of this world. He is supernatural. But we can observe his effects in the natural world just as we inferred the existence of the Big Bang and black holes by observing their effects. It is the same sort of reasoning.

There is one difference though: the evidence and the logic pointing to God’s existence is overwhelmingly stronger than the evidence and logic supporting any other scientific theory in nature. Aquinas’s First Way proof of God’s existence, for example, has exactly the same structure as any other scientific theory. The empirical evidence is the presence of change in nature. Because infinite regress is logically impossible in an essentially ordered chain of changes, there must be a Prime Mover to begin the process and that is what we call God.

Michael Egnor, “Here’s why an argument for God’s existence is scientific” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: We can observe God’s effects in the natural world just as we inferred the existence of the Big Bang and black holes by observing their effects.

See also: Jerry Coyne just can’t give up denying free will. Coyne’s denial of free will, based on determinism, is science denial and junk metaphysics. (Michael Egnor)

Comments
I wear glasses so I guess I never see anything directly unless I take them off (then I only see them fuzzily).Silver Asiatic
April 12, 2021
April
04
Apr
12
12
2021
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
What? So looking through a microscope and directly observing something is actually indirect? All of the pictures of biological structures are indirect viewing? Black holes/ gravity wells make sense form an intelligent design PoV. Let the forces of nature keep galaxies together.ET
April 12, 2021
April
04
Apr
12
12
2021
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Ayearningforpublius -
So yes, we are able to look into the actual machinery of life
Well, no. Our eyesight isn't good enough, so we have to use machines to do this: we observe them indirectly, just as we indirectly observe black holes using machines.Bob O'H
April 12, 2021
April
04
Apr
12
12
2021
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Bob 0, Your comments about not being able to directly observe the actions of machines in the cell were where I was for quite some time until I was able to talk directly with two working scientists. It turns out that they do indeed observe actions within the cell such as the kinesin Motor. See my report on these direct observations at: https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/interesting-people-i-have-met-e-michael-ostap-ph-d/ A number of months after talking with Dr. Ostap, I was walking through the airport at Philadelphia, and saw some large photos on the wall depicting things happening in the scientific/medical community in Philly. One that caught my attention was a photo that looked somewhat like the animations I had seen of the Kinesin Motor. I looked down at the credits, and there was Dr. Ostap's name. The other scientist was from MIT. I attended his lecture at Yale and he also confirmed the capability to observe cell activity. _____ Take a look at my article to see the questions i had for both scientists. So yes, we are able to look into the actual machinery of life, and from there infer what those machines infer, include the existence of a creator God.ayearningforpublius
April 12, 2021
April
04
Apr
12
12
2021
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
The reason God is outside of science, is because the name God is defined in terms of that He makes choices. God is said to create the universe, by choice. God is arbiter at the final judgement. etc. God makes choices. Anything that is on the side of what makes a choice, can only be identified with a chosen opinion, not with a fact forced by evidence. This is why emotions, personal character, feelings, the spirit, the soul, God, are all outside of science, because they are all on the side of what makes a choice.mohammadnursyamsu
April 12, 2021
April
04
Apr
12
12
2021
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Science only cares about reality. So it has to be able to handle the God hypothesis if that is how it really happened.ET
April 12, 2021
April
04
Apr
12
12
2021
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Bob O'H: To say something should exist is very different from having witnessed something. If something is not witnessed and not replicated, it remains hypothesis. A theory is something that has been witnessed and replicated. In regards to God, there are the known laws of physics. Not a single law could have come about by some random chance, since order does not come from chaos. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet we also know it could not always have existed. It is human arrogance to assume there is nothing smarter than man. God is the created of the laws of physics, which makes God far intellectually superior to man.BobRyan
April 11, 2021
April
04
Apr
11
11
2021
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
We never observe black holes just as we never can observe the Big Bang. We can only infer — by inductive reasoning — the existence of supernatural entities such as black holes by their effects in the natural world.
The same goes for, well, all of biochemistry and most of cell biology. We never actually observe, say, nerve cells firing, only their effects on needles on our monitors. Therefore brains must be supernatural too!
This inductive reasoning is precisely what proofs of God’s existence do. We cannot observe God in this life because he is not part of this world. He is supernatural. But we can observe his effects in the natural world just as we inferred the existence of the Big Bang and black holes by observing their effects.
OK, but black holes were predicted from theory. The theory said they should exist, and gave novel predictions that told us how we would see the effects of black holes. So what is the theory that gives us novel predictions that would show us the effects of God?Bob O'H
April 11, 2021
April
04
Apr
11
11
2021
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply