What I, or we, have done here, in fact, is not prove the existence of GOD, but make a point that it constitutes the most successful explanation, in many respects, for the motions of all inanimate objects in the universe in a regular and accurate manner. The alternatives to this are, as stated, no explanation, an explanation of the position on the unfamiliar, and an explanation according to which the inanimate has a will and feeling of its own.
Although the explanation that assumes the existence of GOD is also in the position of the unfamiliar, its advantage is that it attributes the movement to the will – that it is a well-known phenomenon, and that it explains well the uniformity of movement throughout the universe. If we accept this, then we do not have to see a sea split open for years to predict GOD’s actions in reality.
Every fall of an apple, the rotation of the moon, or the rotation of an electron is but an expression of the will of the GOD who drives them.
From these things, one can see how ridiculous the claim is that science and physics “supersede” GOD, and explain everything without him. As if everything that science explains is exaggerated from the realm of GOD, and what is left for the believer is only the shrinking “GOD of gaps,” designed to explain only those things that science has not yet explained. This is ridiculous of course because as we have seen, science probably does not explain anything in relation to the basic laws of physics. It just describes them. If we still want an explanation, then GOD is an explanation no less successful than the mysterious “gravity.” GOD is not only in miracles and the unknown. He is in the equations of the laws of nature themselves, and instead of calling them the laws of nature (when the word nature means nothing but “thus”), one can simply call them the laws of GOD.
And I think, Newton, of course, would be the first to agree.
