Q&A: Scientific Proof of God
Scientific Proof of God
Question
I happened to speak on Thursday with an atheist who basically argued as follows: there is no better method than science for proving something about physical reality. (I do in fact agree.) The next step was to say that science claims nothing about God, just as it claims nothing about fairies. These concepts are in the same category (0 scientific evidence) — and therefore I am indirectly admitting that God = fairies. If I think he is wrong, then I need to provide a method better than science in order to prove something in reality.
My answer was: 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 do not know for certain which of the options is correct; I can only try to think in one direction or the other.
But still, both options are plausible and no decision has been reached.
To equate one of the possibilities (an intelligent cause) with a fairy is simply ridiculous.
Still, he answered that a believer has to provide a method better than science in order to prove something in physical reality (God).
It seems that his bottom line is: there is no God until we arrive at a scientific empirical result.
So what can one answer to such an argument?
Answer
You asked about God and fairies, didn’t you? You got an answer there from the bot. Why keep repeating this nonsense?
There are good philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and there are no arguments for the existence of fairies. That’s all.
If you want a fuller presentation of the arguments, read my book The First Existent, which is entirely devoted to that.
And please, leave us alone already with the fairies. I’m completely fed up with this stupidity.
I can offer the bot’s answer again:
A short disclaimer: the answers are given by a model that tries to reconstruct Rabbi Michael Abraham’s way of thinking on the basis of his writings. They do not necessarily represent the rabbi’s actual opinion, and certainly not an actual halakhic ruling. Also, the Michi-bot is intended for use with the GPT-5 Thinking model — It’s worth making sure this is the active model..
A concise formulation of a possible response to the atheist:
1. Different categories — not “fairies”
Fairies are supposedly physical entities; “God” (as you defined: an intelligent cause of the universe) is a metaphysical explanation for the rationality of reality itself (existence, lawfulness, values). This is not an entity one would expect to find under a microscope. Mixing them together is a category mistake. Science deals with mechanisms within the world; the question “why is there a lawful world at all, and why is it directed toward intellect?” is a legitimate rational-philosophical question, not “the same category” as fairies. See: [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/posts/87140/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
2. “There is no God until there is 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 yet we still know things in those domains. The demand specifically for empirical evidence for God’s existence confuses empirical epistemology with other rational forms of justification. See: [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/posts/82112/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
3. No certainty? Still, there can be reasonable knowledge
Even without “certainty,” one can justify belief in God by inference to the best explanation (IBEX). The absence of certainty is not an argument for atheism; at most, it is an argument for agnosticism. The claim “there is no God” is stronger and requires justification. 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 kinds of arguments are available to the believer
* Cosmological (dependence / beginnings): the dependence of what exists on a non-dependent source explains the very existence of a world better than arbitrary “that’s just how it is.” This is a principled argument, not an experimental one. 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: scientific factual data (constants, lawfulness) provide raw material for a rational inference to purpose/intention. There is no “experiment on God,” but there are indications that tip the scales. The rabbi makes clear 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 away” God
Occam is not a truth-detector but a rule of preference between explanations that already explain things well. If “God” adds explanatory power (lawfulness, fine-tuning, consciousness, morality), then He is not a superfluous entity, and therefore the razor does not disqualify Him. See: [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/posts/74050/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
Also, from the standpoint of the principle of simplicity, one cannot prefer an implausible 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 says nothing about God” — methodologically true, but not an argument against Him
The scientific method does not deal with metaphysical explanations, and that does not make them irrational. What is not empirically testable can still be true and philosophically justified. See: [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/posts/87140/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
How to answer in conversation (a short formulation you can actually say):
* “You are assuming that one type of proof (experiment) is the only one. That’s scientism. There are also philosophical inferences.” — [Mikyab](https://mikyab.net/posts/82112/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* “God is not a ‘fairy.’ It 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 superior plausibility: cosmological argument, fine-tuning, and so on. That is rational knowledge even if it is 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%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)
* “Occam does not determine truth; and if God explains more, then 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 actually used:
* A Look at the Principle of Occam’s Razor (Column 426) — [link](https://mikyab.net/posts/74050/)
* Atheism as ‘Scientism’: On Science and Philosophy (Column 586) — [link](https://mikyab.net/posts/82112/)
* The Development of the Methodology of Midrash and Philosophy of Science (Column 647) — [link](https://mikyab.net/posts/87140/)
* “Certainty, Proof, and the Existence of God” (Responsa) — [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 argument / proofs for the existence of God (related responsa) — [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%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/) , [link](https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%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/)
* “Scientific” Proof of God (Responsa – 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 2–3 and appendix A.
* Book: The Sciences of Freedom — discussion of the principle of Occam.
For a deeper picture, it is recommended to look through the sources. Do you want me to elaborate on a particular point (for example, fine-tuning), or formulate a “short speech” for a café conversation?