Can God existence be proven by Newton's lows of motion?

Question

In case you are not familiar with Newton's laws of motion:

1). "An object will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force"
2). "The force on an object is equal to it's mass multiplied by it's acceleration"
3). "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction".

Question two: do you think that someone in the court will believe that:
Presuming those lows are universally true and unchangeable then it means someone had to give universe the first push. Otherwise, it can be proven that a killing object may move without being act upon by an external force just like it did before, therefore, the suspect may not be condemned unless caught in action.

It seams logic to me to be this way but I would like some sever comments on the issue. Thank you.

Mordent: Exactly, but we can't prove that always will occur at that level only.

Sly Fox: I was presenting the case in Low& Ethics and they suggested it's more like a philosophic issue.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApoqCaoq97i9o_mma9hZO1Xsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071205073859AAov3rj

Acid Zebra, a-the-ist: we are talking about the forces involved or causing the appearance of nature. If there is no nature, there is no force of nature, therefore the force of nature could not give the initial push.

Answer 1

...and of course the "first mover" should be Christian god. Not, say, a force of nature.

Answer 2

If I'm not wrong!
It was the Newtonian laws of motion and gravity which weakened Aristotle's theory of causation which was used to demonstrate the existence of God. In that Aristotle stated that the natural state of everything is motionless and traced everything back to a chain of events started by God in person.
Where as Newton started to question the roll of direct intervention of God, attributing mechanical principles to the interaction of objects.
As far as the 1st law is concerned, today we must consider an objects relativity to other objects, *the train and the station on a spinning sphere*
As to what (or who if it is your belief) built the co coo clock that's a whole other question!
Which lacks proof as we would need to go back to before time began in order to know with certainty.

As for the Second question
Here we are talking about criminal law which falls into the realm of legislation. for which you must present much more evidence.

If you are thinking about taking God to court claiming that he was guilty of murder based on the fact the he was responsible for the laws of nature, I fear you will have a rather weak case!

Please don't confuses different types of law

Answer 3

Hmm... You all started out this question totally heading in the right route. this is to assert, it isn't available to educate or disprove the existence of God, or Saddam Hussein, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because to assert that anybody of them exists is an unconditional fact and evidence in basic terms applies to conditional statements (statements which have axioms to paintings with). although, you've also made distinctive mistakes. First, as an atheist myself, i do no longer call for evidence of God's existence (for the above causes) in order to position self belief in him. although, I DO call for sufficient data to advance the prospect of his existence previous 50%. so some distance no convincing data has been presented, so I evaluate that I nonetheless have a superbly lifelike foundation for rejecting God's existence at the moment. 2d, basically as you may not educate the existence of Saddam Hussein or Hitler or Stalin, likewise you may not educate the existence of Jesus. there is not any longer some thing that makes archives claiming the existence of Jesus actually better credible than archives claiming the existence of Hitler or Stalin or the different historic determine. besides, regardless of the particular undeniable actuality that there is a few historic data that the biblical determine of Jesus is in accordance to a real individual or team of human beings, this is a some distance cry from having verified that he change into truly the divine son of God, interior a similar experience that demonstrating the existence of Grigori Rasputin isn't like demonstrating that he had psionic powers.

Answer 4

The universe is not just mechanics. Newton is no longer state of the art. Move to Einstein and then on. I don't think that you will find a law of physics that requires the presence of a god.

Anyway, I applaud you for the idea of a scientific approach. But as in all science, you should not start with the result, you should start with the question.

Answer 5

Wrong. It doesn't mean someONE had to give the universe the first push, it means someTHING had to do it. It doesn't mean that that thing was a sentient all powerful diety.

Besides the laws of motion do not always apply - at the quantum level things pop into and out of existance all the time.

Answer 6

"Laws", dude. I doubt that a court would accept such evidence, as they usually look for the physical evidence.

Answer 7

no you don't need to prove God this way you just have to have faith!