Recently, I discovered some proof, that, as far as I understand it, is irrefutable mathematical and scientific proof that God exists. I would like to post it here for critical analysis. Please feel free to tear it apart if you spot any weaknesses in the argument, as it will be used in some very unforgiving environments. Harsh judgment will be greatly appreciated. The argument involves philosophy, science and mathematics. But don't be intimidated, its very simple and if I can get it, anyone can. The Issues that will be examined: Einstein's Theory of Relativity vs. Quantum Mechanics Mathematics vs David Hume's supposed debunking of Causality Ok... I will try to keep as focused as I can. # 1: Refutation of Materialism This first part of the argument attempts to argue that the discrepancy between the findings of Einstein's theory of Relativity, and modern Quantum Mechanics can be reconsiled only if we drop this narrow minded classification for the word "scientific" and/or "reality". According to the scientific method, only that which is falsifiable is scientific. More simply, only that which can be measured, can be considered "real". This is the basis for all materialistic ways of thinking. However, there is now proof, that there is more to this universe, than meets the eye... so to speak. Now by the word "matter", is meant anything which has mass. Also, according to most scientists, only things which have mass, are real. Anything which doesn't fit into this mass/energy model is effectively, non-existent according to contemporary science. So first up, Einstein's theory of relativity. One of the main implications of Relativity is its prediction that no matter can travel at, or faster then the speed of light. The closer it gets to the speed of light, the greater its mass will become, and therefore the greater the energy needed to keep accelerating it, until its mass reaches infinity. Everything was fine, (for a very short while), until Quantum Mechanics came along and rained on Einstein's parade. Today, there are a stream of experiments which have opened up a bizarre subatomic world in which nothing seems to make sense. One of the discoveries came with the double slit experiments. I wont bore you with the details (even though they are not boring and you really should read up on this), but one of the discoveries they found is that there is indeed something faster then light. They found that somehow, information was being shared between electrons at instantaneous speeds. Speeds faster then the speed of light. But we already "know" that nothing can go faster then the speed of light. Or more specifically, nothing which has mass, can go faster. In other words, everything which is falsifiable, and can be observed/measured, can not travel faster then light. So what does this mean? We know that: A) Matter can not travel faster or at the speed of light B) Something in this universe is travelling at infinite speed (faster then light) Therefore: There is something in this universe which is beyond matter. So no longer can the scientific method be used to rule that the supernatural (something that can not be measured, or directly observed) is not real and doesnt exist. #2 - The Resurgence of Causality Causality is not well liked by philosophers. It is considered to have been effectively debunked by David Hume, its coffin sealed and buried in the 18th century. But in my opinion, philosophers should never be taken too seriously. Mathematics, on the other hand, should. Some of you might have already figured out where I am going with this. This is the age old debate between hardcore athiests and thiests. This debate goes well beyond the likes of Richard Dawkins and evolutionary biology. According to those like Dawkins, all the order in the universe came about by itself, because they believe that no creative force is neccessary for order to come about. But the problem with this argument is that this is simply not true, mathematically. This is basically a question of probabilities. What are the odds that this level of evolutionary order came about by itself? Well, according to my research (and if anyone can find counter proof to this please post it here) there is only one way that this level of order could have arisen by itself: If the universe was infinite. What this means is, if there was infinite time, and infinite space, then a thousand monkeys typing on typewriters will eventually "randomly" produce Shakespeare's Hamlet. This is the oft cited Infinite Monkey Theorem. Now this is not operationally possible of course, but the theory is somewhat valid. However, as we will come to find out, this is proof against the atheist, not in support of him. The point is that this level of order, could only come about randomly, if there was infinite time and space. If the universe was infinitely big. And we know that this is not the case. If you think about it for a second, in a land without time, anything really can happen by itself. Because all the possibilities are valid, there is just so much time, that everything will end up happening by itself, sooner or later. All the combinations of all the possibilities will work themselves out. But this is only possible in a land without time. Basically, what this means is that even though its been billions of years since the Big Bang and the universe is so vast... the odds of this level of life evolving on this planet of ours, are still so small, so infinitely minuscule, that it really requires a big leap of faith, to say that this all happened randomly, by chance, and without any creative authority. Think about it, the odds of a single cell ameoba evolving on this planet are themselves incredibly insignificant. But what are the odds that this mutation will then further mutate into something else. And every further mutation requires the odds to be stretched, and stretched until you understand the meaning of the word "impossible". So mathematics, proves that you need a Prime Cause, an Intelligent Deity to set the ball rolling (at least). For anyone to argue that all of this, happened by itself, ironically, requires a whole lot of faith. But were not done yet. The philosophical atheist has always had a trump card in his arsenal against causality... or so I thought. At this point he will no doubt end up saying "Well, if causality is real then why don't we apply it to God? If everything needs a cause... and then what was the cause for God?" I always thought that this question was the reason why all believers, ultimately had to fall back on faith and the atheist could always claim victory. However, as it turns out, this point is completely nullified by a simple mathematical fact, i.e. causality only applies to finite things. You see, in infinite time, anything could happen. Anything could arise by itself. Ramsey Theory, for example provides us proof that highly organized sub systems always arise by themselves in the most random of systems, by themselves, eventually. So technically, what this means is that in infinite time, even a God, could arise by Himself. Without any one creating Him. This is what God means when He says in the Bible "I am the Alpha and the Omega". In the Quran, God says that He "begets not, nor is He begotten." We can finally understand this statement in terms of mathematics. So to recap, this is what this argument proposes: A) That Causality is valid because of mathematical probabilities. This level of evolutionary order in this finite universe could not have come about by itself without an Author. A prime Cause. B) That causality does not apply to God, because He is Infinite, and anything can come about in an infinite amount of time, even a God. In addition, we know that there is something out there which is beyond matter. Some form of information exchange through some agency which is unmeasurable. Which should force a redefinition of the "Scientific Method" and what is considered "real."