Every Experiment Proves God

It has become commonplace in discussions about faith and religion to note that no experiment can prove or disprove God’s existence. Atheist adherents of scientism point to this as a reason why no one should believe in God, especially with any sort of certainty. Believers, on the other hand, point out that since God is not the object of scientific analysis, science cannot disprove his existence, despite atheistic claims otherwise. God must be known in other ways.

While reading some atheist writers lately I wondered if we believers might not make our point more clearly if, instead of pointing out that no scientific experiment will prove or disprove God as an object of science, we point out instead that every experiment proves God as knowable through reason.

Normally, a scientific experiment will produce results that will confirm or disconfirm an hypothesis. Conclusions are based on observing the results, which could conceivably go one way or the other.

God is not like that. In any experiment, any results whatsoever are evidence of God’s existence. The conclusion of God’s existence is not based on the results, it is based on every facet of the entire experiment itself.

For instance, in any experiment whatsoever we observe beings existing. By observing and questioning beings and existence, we can philosophically conclude a necessarily existing being, whose essence and existence are identical.

In any experiment whatsoever, we observe causality, and by thinking about causality we can come to the First Cause.

In any and every experiment, we observe both change and continuity through change, which leads us on to conclusions about act and potency, essence and accident, and substance which again lead to conclusions about being and causality and finally lead to God.

Finally, in every experiment, we observe intelligibility and order. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t and couldn’t do the experiment in the first place. Intelligibility in nature also leads, through reasoning, to an Absolute Intelligence.

It’s not my intention to trace out any of these arguments in this post. If you are interested, philosophers have been discussing these arguments for millennia. Nor is it my point, here, to argue that God is a good conclusion from any of these arguments. I simply want to point out that the claim that belief in God is not based on any observation or experiment is untrue, if we recognize that the arguments for God begin with real observations of facets of reality – being, causality, intelligibility – which are found in every experiment. The argument for God then follows from reasoning about these observations. God is not observed as an hypothesis supported by a set of specific experiments. God’s existence is known through reason by observing and reasoning about the totality of any experiment, or of any basic observation of the world.

If theistic philosophical arguments are correct, every observation and every experiment proves God.

7 comments on “Every Experiment Proves God

  1. orandat says:

    A book you might find interesting is God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger. Stenger’s position is that if God exists and He created the universe, and if He interacts with the material world in any way, then there should be evidence for this that can be detected through science. Stenger puts the God Hypothesis to the test, and finds that not only is there no evidence for God, but the universe’s appearance and behavior is entirely natural.

    • Orandat,

      Thank you for the suggestion. I have not read Stenger’s book.

      However, given what you describe as his argument, I dispute Stenger’s premise that God is known as an hypothesis at all. God is initially known through reason by working back to the necessary causes of the observations we make, not by positing effects that we suppose would be observed if there was a God and then testing to see whether those effects exist. I would be curious about which missing effects Stenger thinks ought to exist in a created world, and how he justifies positing them without knowing about the Creator he is “testing” for.

  2. Erik says:

    Unreal. It would seem to be a better use of your time to just enjoy your version of reality than to publically display such ignorance. Your views would have put you to death my your own religion just a few hundred years ago during a time when it was “fact” that the earth was a few thousand years old.

  3. CMike says:

    Wow! You hit the nail on the head!

    Although this article sounds intelligent and is well written, it’s missing two very important elements: reason and logic.

    Philosophical analysis of scientific experiments is neither good form for proving or disproving anything. It is, however, useful in deciding exactly what type of experiment one should employ to reach such conclusions.

    Going back to “hitting the nail on the head” – you seem to have the hammer (read “*free* thought”), but you seem to be out of nails. Which explains the lump on your head and your lack of comprehension.

  4. Erik: Speaking of public displays of ignorance…

    CMIke: Would you then argue that mathematical proofs can’t prove anything, either?

  5. [...] If you have even a mild interest in science and astronomy, go add this blog to your bookmarks right now. Michael Baruzzini does an excellent job of highlighting the most interesting stories from the world of science, occasionally examining them from a Catholic perspective. It’s one of the most readable, well done science blogs out there, so the fact that it’s Catholic as well is a great bonus. Example post: Every Experiment Proves God [...]

  6. athanasius96 says:

    Well said! I make some similar points in a post “Are Atheistic Scientists Practical Theists?” http://perichoreticlife.blogspot.com/2011/07/are-atheistic-scientists-actually.html