Scientific proof of God
On Thursday I got to talk to an atheist – who basically claimed this: There is no better method than science to prove something in physical reality. (I do agree). The next step was to say that science does not claim anything about God. Just as it does not claim anything about fairies. These concepts are in the same category (0 scientific evidence) – and therefore I indirectly admit that God = fairies. If I think he is wrong – then I need to provide a better method than science to prove something in reality.
My answer – if I define God, he would be an intelligent cause of the universe. The whole debate is whether the cause of the universe is intelligent or necessarily arbitrary.
We don’t know for sure which of the options is correct; I can only try to think one way or the other.
But still, both options are acceptable and have not reached a decision.
Parallel one of the possibilities (an intelligent factor) according to which fairy is simply a joke.
Still, he replied that a believer must provide a better method than science to prove anything in physical reality (God).
His bottom line seems to be – there is no God until we reach a scientific empirical conclusion.
Still, what can be said in response to such an argument?
You asked about God and fairies, didn’t you? You got an answer from the bot. Why repeat this nonsense again?
There are good philosophical arguments for the existence of God and no arguments for the existence of fairies. That’s all.
If you want a detailed explanation of the arguments, read my first book, which is entirely devoted to this.
And please leave us alone with the fairies. I’ve completely exhausted this nonsense.
I can offer the bot's answer again:
A short disclaimer: The answers are given by a model that attempts to reproduce the way Rabbi Michael Avraham thought based on his writings. They do not necessarily represent the Rabbi's actual opinion, and certainly not actual halachic rulings. Also, the michi-bot is intended for use with the GPT-5 Thinking model — it is worth making sure that this is the active model.
A concise formulation of a possible answer for an atheist:
1. Different categories – not “fairies”
Fairies are apparently physical entities; “God” (as you defined: an intelligent cause of the universe) is a metaphysical explanation for the rationality of reality itself (existence, laws, values). This is not an entity that one would expect to find under a microscope. Mixing them up is a category error. Science deals with mechanisms within the world; The question “Why is there a legal world at all and why is it mind-directed?” is a legitimate rational-philosophical question and not “the same category” as fairies. See: [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/posts/87140/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
2. “There is no God until an empirical result” = Scientism, not science
Science is the best tool for empirical questions, but not for all rational questions. Mathematics, logic, and morality are not decided by experiment and we still know things about them. The demand for empirical evidence specifically for the existence of God confuses empirical epistemology with other forms of rational justification. See: [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/posts/82112/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
3. No certainty? There is still reasonable knowledge
Even without “certainty”, one can justify belief in God by inference to the best description (IBEX). Lack of certainty is not an argument for atheism; at most for agnosticism. The statement “there is no God” is stronger and requires reasoning. See: [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%95%D7%95%D7%93%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%97%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9C/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
4. What types of reasoning are available to the believer?
* Cosmological (dependence/beginnings): Dependence of the existing on an independent source better explains the very existence of a world than arbitrariness “just like that”. This is a principled, not experimental, claim. See: [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%98%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9D-2/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* Physico-theological/Fine-tuning: Fact-Data Scientific (constants, laws) provide raw material for rational inference to purpose/intention. There is no “experiment on God”, but there are indications that tip the scales. The rabbi clarifies that these are reasonable philosophical inferences, not “mathematical proofs” — and that is how most of our knowledge works.
5. Occam's Razor Does Not “Shave” God
Occam is not a truth-finder but a rule of preference between explanations that already explain well. If “God” adds explanatory power (lawfulness, regulation, consciousness, morality), he is not a superfluous entity and therefore the razor does not rule him out. See: [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/posts/74050/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
Also in terms of the principle of simplicity, it is impossible to prefer an unreasonable explanation just because it is “simple”. See: [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
6. “Science does not argue about God” — methodologically correct, not an argument against
The scientific method does not discuss metaphysical explanations, and this does not make them irrational. What is not empirically tested can still be true and philosophically justified. See: [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/posts/87140/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
How to reply in conversation (short form that can be said):
* “You assume that one type of evidence (experiment) is the only one. That is scientism. There are also philosophical inferences.” — [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/posts/82112/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* “God is not a ‘mouth’. That is a metaphysical hypothesis about the fundamental cause of reality, not about a hidden physical entity.” — [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/posts/87140/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* “I am not claiming certainty, but rather a superior probability: cosmological, fine-tuning, etc.’. This is rational knowledge even if not experimental.” — [Mikyab] (https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%98%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9 5%D7%AA%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9D-2/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* “Ockham does not decide truth; And if God explains more — He is not ‘superfluous’.” — [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/posts/74050/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* “The absence of measurement is not the absence of evidence — it is simply a different kind of evidence.”
Sources used in practice:
* A Look at Ockham's Razor (column 426) — [link](https://mikyab.net/posts/74050/)
* Atheism as a ’Science’: On Science and Philosophy (column 586) — [link](https://mikyab.net/posts/82112/)
* The Development of the Methodology of the Doctrine and the Philosophy of Science (column 647) — [link](https://mikyab.net/posts/87140/)
* “Certainty, Proof, and the Existence of God” (Response) — [Link](https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%95%D7%95%D7%93%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%97%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9C/)
* “Philosophers against God” – On Jeremy Fogel's book (column 726) — [link](https://mikyab.net/posts/94741/)
* The cosmological view/proofs for the existence of God (accompanying responses) — [Link] (https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%98%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%91 2/) , [Link] (https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA-%D 7%9C%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D/)
* Proof “scientific” To God (Response – On the Limits of Science) — [Link](https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%97%D7%94-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D/)
* Book: “God Plays Dice” — Chapters B–C and Appendix A.
* Book: “The Sciences of Freedom” — A Discussion of Occam's Razor.
For a more in-depth picture, it is recommended to consult the sources. Want me to elaborate on a specific point (e.g. the fine-tuning) or draft a “short speech” for a coffee shop conversation?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
