Hi, Swordsmyth. What you are proposing is yet another Christian heresy. Paul appealed to reason when he wrote in Romans 1:19,20 that an understanding of the natural world leads to knowledge of God (NKJV):
""
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ...
""
You are proposing to substitute God's laws for your own or other people's a priori desires as to how the world should be, an epistemological methodology that was the basis of Aristotelianism. You are in effect saying that you know better than God how the world actually works, and that God's laws aren't good enough--that God doesn't know what He is doing. Yet as Paul quite clearly points out in his rebuke of that position, even God's transcendent invisible and eternal attributes can be known by a study of physical reality. After all, the laws of nature are God's laws. In studying God's laws, one is necessarily studying the intellect of God.
Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient.
As well, your statements are a misunderstanding of modern physics. The known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) have been confirmed by every experiment ever conducted. There has never been a revision to them. And they have always mathematically unavoidably produced God.
Per your proposed epistemic methodology, rejecting empirical science is precisely how the physics community is handling this discomfiting matter. Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: i.e., quite literally, the singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.
In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.
With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon a priori philosophical ideals. One of the a priori ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.
For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28 ff. of my following article:
* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708,
https://archive.org/download/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf ,
https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god ,
https://sites.google.com/site/physic...ics-of-God.pdf .
Furthermore, the fundamental physics of today are simply more specific subsets of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., Newtonian mechanics with specific constrains put on it in order to make it consistent with observations and to make its resulting subsets mutually mathematically consistent with each other. Hence, we have never left the realm of Newton's physics. And all the forces in physics are now described and made mutually consistent with the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. For that, see the following resource:
* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID:
jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo ,
https://archive.is/a04w9 ,
https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .
Moreover, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).
For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional (or higher) world with self-aware beings in it, see the foregoing July 30, 2013 resource.
Connect With Us