Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[lunakilo]

It is this type of thinking that makes me wonder why I come here in the first place.

It is this type of thinking that makes me wonder why You come here in the first place.

 

[McBell]

If you agree with someone that is factually wrong on a particular subject, that makes you wrong by default.

One wonders why you think you are excempt from this statement...

I have already explained why the universe is fined tuned for human life and unless you can refute it, seemly saying "No it isn't", or "the universe isn't really designed for anything" will not get the job done.

Really?
Where?

What post is this explanation in?

 

[McBell]

It is this type of thinking that makes me wonder why I come here in the first place.

Not familiar with the Puddle Argument?

Here is a good place to start:

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

I figured you thought you would find a whole forum of people knocking each other over in their attempts to congratulate you on your earth shattering proclamations...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

One wonders why you think you are excempt from this statement




Really?
Where?

What post is this explanation in?

#171...Penrose's equations....the fine tuning of the universe is not something that was made up...or something that is new...scientists know that in order for our universe to be life permitting, it must be fine tuned to such an astronomical degree...it is not a matter of "if"...it is a matter of "why" and "how"..so you people are fighting a losing battle when you try to deny or down-play it.

 

[McBell]

#171...Penrose's equations....

Thank you.

the fine tuning of the universe is not something that was made up...or something that is new...scientists know that in order for our universe to be life permitting, it must be fine tuned to such an astronomical degree...it is not a matter of "if"...it is a matter of "why" and "how"..so you people are fighting a losing battle when you try to deny or down-play it.

um..
Where are his calculations?
I mean, where does he show his work?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

um..
Where are his calculations?
I mean, where does he show his work?

Roger Penrose "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity," C.J. Isham, Roger Penrose, D.W. Sciama (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981) p. 249.

 

[jasonwill2]

AH! SO MANY WALLS OF TEXT!

No, it isn't.

I believe this is called 'puddle thinking'.

Lately I've started to think that life was an afterthought for god that he didn't intend... just something that he only realized later on was possible, and so then he didn't have enough resources to devote to completely oversee life, meaning that we are largely on our own and he just directs the over-all direction with a tiny nudge here and there even rarely.

edit: actually it makes more sense that life, like the universe, is working like a watch or a clock... and that god doesn't interfere as he didn't intend to hold the universe's, or man's, hand through all of it... In other words he set up how it all works and doesn't interfere except in some cases when called upon to certain magic users.

#171...Penrose's equations....the fine tuning of the universe is not something that was made up...or something that is new...scientists know that in order for our universe to be life permitting, it must be fine tuned to such an astronomical degree...it is not a matter of "if"...it is a matter of "why" and "how"..so you people are fighting a losing battle when you try to deny or down-play it.

I have his book The Road to Reality and I went over my head at page 100 (when it hit real world calculus), and didn't start making sense until a few pages on Black Hole Entropy hundreds of pages later, then it failed to make sense for the rest of the book. I doubt you could understand the complex math unless you have taken the appropriate classes. The insanely complex mathmatics involved goes beyond being self-educated for the most part in my humble opinion.

Roger Penrose "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity," C.J. Isham, Roger Penrose, D.W. Sciama (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981) p. 249.

Do you understand what the equations actually say? Or do you just quote this thinking that is somehow supports your position? It is one thing to understand the words "fine-tuned", it is another to understand what causes a person to come to this conclusion and what they actually mean by "fine-tuned".

 

[A Troubled Man]

LoL, I would never be foolish enough to say that infinity cannot exist in reality and then turn around a sentence later and say that God is infinite in the same way. I might be crazy, but I aint no fool.

Are you offering that up for debate, as well?

Um, yes they are the same thing. if I asked you to explain the origins of your computer, and the answer has to lie within your computer, would you be able to do it? I really would like an answer to this question since you are making it seem as if when I say "science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain", as if I am saying this without warrant.

No, they aren't the same thing and yes, we can explain the origins of computers.

Yes it does....it says "Cannot divide by 0", which is no surprise. I am not even sure why I even tried to compute it anyway. If I have a box of pizza, how can I divide it with 0 people??? Hmmmm

You'd still have a box of pizza.

So, if computers never existed, and you were walking in a field and tripped over a laptop and started pressing buttons and seeing all of this complexity within this object, would you not assume intelligent design?? But that's not the point anyway, the point is, if something as simple as a computer is intelligently designed, then the universe must be intelligently designed, because you cant get the type of precision that the universe has for human life from a blind, random, non-intellectual process.

Sure, if I fell off the turnip truck yesterday, was completely ignorant about everything around me and my head was full of superstitious nonsense, I might very well come to that conclusion, too. But, we didn't roll off the turnip truck yesterday and we aren't completely ignorant about the world around us and our heads are not filled with superstitious nonsense, hence we don't jump to the same ignorant conclusions.

The fine tuning of the universe is not something new and something that is being debated by scientists. The universe is fine tuned for human life. Those were the calculations by Roger Penrose, who is a leading physicists in cosmology. He took the total entropy of the universe, which is 10:80 (10 in base and 80 as exponent), multiplied by entropy per baryon (10:43), and that will give a total of (10:123), and since the logarithm of the total phase-space volume, the total universe for a creation event is 10:10:123, which is 10 as the base and a 1 with 123 zeros as the exponent, and every zero representing 10. Now I don't know specifics, but this is what a guy that works in the field calculated. We are going where science takes us, right??? Well, it is taking us in the direction of supernatural implications, because if you believe you can get that type of precision from a natural, blind, random, non-intellectual process, I would say that requires a lot of faith.

But, as you admit, you don't know the specifics and are hence coming to ridiculous conclusions based on not knowing what you're talking about. No, it is not taking us in the direction of supernatural nonsense.

And unbelievers really want to negate the existence of a God so they postulate absurdities, like actual infinities, things popping in to being out of nothing, and complexity coming from randomness.

LOL! It's funny how believers compare their invisible sky daddies to evidence based concepts they don't understand, but pretend they do.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Are you offering that up for debate, as well?

Very funny.

No, they aren't the same thing and yes, we can explain the origins of computers.

Yes they are the same thing...you cant use anything within the universe to explain the origins of the universe just like you cant use anything within the computer to explain the origin of computers...but as I can see...your answers are becoming shorter and you are resulting in more rhetoric than providing sound arguments for your position.

You'd still have a box of pizza.

One person with a box of pizza does not equal infinity.

Sure, if I fell off the turnip truck yesterday, was completely ignorant about everything around me and my head was full of superstitious nonsense, I might very well come to that conclusion, too. But, we didn't roll off the turnip truck yesterday and we aren't completely ignorant about the world around us and our heads are not filled with superstitious nonsense, hence we don't jump to the same ignorant conclusions.

Im not interested in rhetoric..what I am interested in is sound refutations of my arguments, and so far you have failed to provide such.

But, as you admit, you don't know the specifics and are hence coming to ridiculous conclusions based on not knowing what you're talking about. No, it is not taking us in the direction of supernatural nonsense.

"Coming to ridiculous conclusions based on not knowing what you're talking about"...no, ridiculous conclusions is saying that the human body configured itself with a reproductive system for reproducing, digestive system for digesting food, circulatory system for blood flow with a heart to pump it throughout the body, immune system to fight diseases that invade the body, and a nervous system for thinking, eyes to see for sight, ears to hear for sound, teeth to chew food, and siliva to moisten food for easier breakdown. It is ridiculous to think that all of these things could have configurated itself from a blind, unguided, non-intellectual process. It is ridiculous to think that all of this purpose comes from something that started out unpurposful. That is ridiculous. I cannot believe something that ridiculous. To be honest, the faith that you have to have in order to believe that these things occurred from a blind, unguided process far more exceeds anything that religion has to offer.

LOL! It's funny how believers compare their invisible sky daddies to evidence based concepts they don't understand, but pretend they do.

I will believe that a sky daddy, which is a being of intelligence, is the cause of all intelligence before I believe that a tornado can sweep through a junkyard and as a result a 747 Boeing gets fully assembled.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I have his book The Road to Reality and I went over my head at page 100 (when it hit real world calculus), and didn't start making sense until a few pages on Black Hole Entropy hundreds of pages later, then it failed to make sense for the rest of the book. I doubt you could understand the complex math unless you have taken the appropriate classes. The insanely complex mathmatics involved goes beyond being self-educated for the most part in my humble opinion.

Ok

Do you understand what the equations actually say?

Yes, the equations show just how much precision is needed for this universe to be life permitting.

Or do you just quote this thinking that is somehow supports your position?

It doesn't "somehow" support my position. It SUPPORTS my position, and my position is the universe is fine tuned for human life. Based on this fine tuning, I draw the conclusion that the universe was designed by a designer. There are more fine tuning based on the universal constants of our universe than any thing that man has ever made. So if things of less complexity is designed, then why are we hesitant to conclude that something vastly more complex than anything that we've made was designed??? Makes no sense.

It is one thing to understand the words "fine-tuned", it is another to understand what causes a person to come to this conclusion and what they actually mean by "fine-tuned".

You can downplay it all you want. First of all, you claim you have the book. If you have the book, you will see what "causes a person to come to this conclusion and what they actually mean by fine-tuned". I am using a unbiased expert in the field (not that it matters whether or not Penrose is a Christian anyway). And based on this unbiased expert, we are able to know how fined tuned the universe is to make human life permissible. It is called SCIENCE. 200 years ago, we didnt know. 200 years later, we know. Isn't that what science is all about? Isn't that what naturalist used to say to theists??......that "science says this.....science says that...science science science"......well, based on mathematical equations by these scientists, we know just how finely tuned the universe is for human life. You can attack my knowledge of the math all you want, but that doesnt chang anything. The fine tuning of the universe is not something that is up for debate by scientists. The debate is how and why. So, as I said, the universe is fined tuned for human life based on the mathematical equations from experts in the field, and the theists believe that based on this kind of precision that the best explanation is that an intelligent being used his intellectual capabilities to create something so complex, so precision, and so finely tuned.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Yes they are the same thing...you cant use anything within the universe to explain the origins of the universe just like you cant use anything within the computer to explain the origin of computers...

You can use each part of hardware and each software program to explain the origins of a computer, however that is irrelevant and a strawman. Science is a process of understanding the universe and the universe is all there is for us to understand.

Notice how that works?

but as I can see...your answers are becoming shorter and you are resulting in more rhetoric than providing sound arguments for your position.

LOL!

One person with a box of pizza does not equal infinity.

But, it does equal a box of pizza no matter how many people you don't share it, in fact, you don't have to share it with an infinite amount of people.

Im not interested in rhetoric..what I am interested in is sound refutations of my arguments, and so far you have failed to provide such.

Your arguments are fallacies combined with confusion and everyone here is trying to help you sort out your confused fallacies.

"Coming to ridiculous conclusions based on not knowing what you're talking about"...no, ridiculous conclusions is saying that the human body configured itself with a reproductive system for reproducing, digestive system for digesting food, circulatory system for blood flow with a heart to pump it throughout the body, immune system to fight diseases that invade the body, and a nervous system for thinking, eyes to see for sight, ears to hear for sound, teeth to chew food, and siliva to moisten food for easier breakdown. It is ridiculous to think that all of these things could have configurated itself from a blind, unguided, non-intellectual process.

It would be ridiculous for anyone who was utterly ignorant of facts and was filled with superstitious nonsense.

It is ridiculous to think that all of this purpose comes from something that started out unpurposful. That is ridiculous. I cannot believe something that ridiculous.

You have made it blatanly honest you have no understanding of that which you find ridiculous and would much rather not think about it and pretend an invisible sky daddy waved his magic hand.

I will believe that a sky daddy, which is a being of intelligence, is the cause of all intelligence before I believe that a tornado can sweep through a junkyard and as a result a 747 Boeing gets fully assembled.

Yes, I know. And, you will continue to fill your posts with exactly those kind of superstitious beliefs and remain completely ignorant to facts and evidence.

 

[EnochSDP]

Cut-and-paste?

If not, could I trouble you to insert some line-breaks in your posts, they are practically unreadable.

Ok will do!

 

[EnochSDP]

If you agree with someone that is factually wrong on a particular subject, that makes you wrong by default. I have already explained why the universe is fined tuned for human life and unless you can refute it, seemly saying "No it isn't", or "the universe isn't really designed for anything" will not get the job done.

100% correct!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It is this type of thinking that makes me wonder why I come here in the first place.

I would assume you come here to be exposed to this accurate type of thinking
Since you appear to have been starved of it elsewhere.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Lately I've started to think that life was an afterthought for god that he didn't intend... just something that he only realized later on was possible, and so then he didn't have enough resources to devote to completely oversee life, meaning that we are largely on our own and he just directs the over-all direction with a tiny nudge here and there even rarely.

edit: actually it makes more sense that life, like the universe, is working like a watch or a clock... and that god doesn't interfere as he didn't intend to hold the universe's, or man's, hand through all of it... In other words he set up how it all works and doesn't interfere except in some cases when called upon to certain magic users.

It's possible; I simply don't find it overly likely. The universe itself does not support the concept of a singular creator, but rather multiple, if one accepts the 'evidence' of intelligent original creation. Personally I do not, and the lore of Heathenry suggests the Gods are part of the Universe itself, children of it just like we are; albeit far more powerful and effective.

It makes sense to me what you say about a predominantly hands-off approach, but, it also appears that since they [the Gods, whomever in total they might be] have some form of interest in how things turn out, and frankly, being able to interfere will generally lead to interference. Not being a particularly pivotal individual I cannot speak from direct experience.

 

[EnochSDP]

It's possible; I simply don't find it overly likely. The universe itself does not support the concept of a singular creator, but rather multiple, if one accepts the 'evidence' of intelligent original creation. Personally I do not, and the lore of Heathenry suggests the Gods are part of the Universe itself, children of it just like we are; albeit far more powerful and effective.

It makes sense to me what you say about a predominantly hands-off approach, but, it also appears that since they [the Gods, whomever in total they might be] have some form of interest in how things turn out, and frankly, being able to interfere will generally lead to interference. Not being a particularly pivotal individual I cannot speak from direct experience.

Hinting to multiple gives way to one!And how does the universe not support a singular creator.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Hinting to multiple gives way to one!And how does the universe not support a singular creator.

No it certainly does not give way to one.

The universe doesn't support a singular creator because nothing in the universe, from one end to the other, occurs singularly. Everything occurs in multiples. If the universe were a creation of some intent then it would naturally exhibit some characteristics of its creators. The universe's own nature declares that the creators were legion.

Besides, your God even gets the order wrong. He's justy boasting, and was really the outcast who sat alone while the smart kids got to building

 

[Breathe]

Hinting to multiple gives way to one!

How do you come to this conclusion?

 

[lunakilo]

Hinting to multiple gives way to one!And how does the universe not support a singular creator.

Well, the way the universe is put together does support a single creator.
The problem is that the way the universe is put together also supports no creator or multiple creators.

How would you possibly be able to tell the difference just by looking?

 

[work in progress]

You can call it what you want....I am completely in line with modern cosmology, which states that our universe began to exist, something that theists have believed for over 4,000 years.

Not all mythological stories of origins btw, but regardless, it does not mean the beginning of our universe was created by some godlike force...that somehow existed forever...regardless, as mentioned before, physicists today -- working from two different hypothetical frameworks, find that there would be a multitude of universes pre-existing ours, and not one, lone universe created by a godlike force after he got bored from spending an eternity wondering what to do to amuse himself.

Science has just recently confirmed what the theists have always maintained, so science is catching up with religious implications, not the other way around.

Mythologies don't begin with evidence. They start from stories based on our intuitive assumptions about the world, and if some mythologies used our presumptions of cause and effect to make up a story where the whole world was caused, call it a lucky break -- not science catching up with religion!

And it should be noted, since you are presenting this from the JudeoChristian perspective, that Hebrew cosmology did not foreshadow the Universe as we know it to exist today. The Torah and the Talmudic presentation was a circular, flat Earth that was the center of God's creation. The flat Earth held subterranean waters and hot lava underneath. The 'sky' was a vaulted ceiling - translated as the Firmament in English, and had star-lights suspended from this metal ceiling, and the Sun, Moon and planets circled the Earth....and God and the angels lived in heavenly realms above the firmament. The ancient Hebrews had no conception of the scale of the real universe...let alone that our tiny planet was not the center of the Universe. Even a few centuries ago, when astronomers like Tycho Brahe were beginning to learn how to use parallax to determine the distances of the nearby stars, they were disturbed and troubled by the scale of the Universe. If they knew the Universe was billions of light years in diameter, and was expanding at an ever-accelerating rate of speed so that it will eventually completely disintegrate -- what would they have thought about the purposefulness of Creation?

I have also gave philosophical and mathematical reasons why we can logically conclude that the universe began to exist, and no one has yet to successfully refute my claims, because you cant refute the truth. So all the atheists/naturalist can do now is to just fold his/her arms and pout angrily as the evidence just keep pouring in by large amounts. Nothing that I stated on this topic can be said to be a lie, and it is confirmed by science, philosophy, and mathematics.

An endless, pointless argument about numbers, and that's how you claim to be irrefutable!

This is not the case at all, some words have different meanings based on the context. When I used the word "infinity" in the first discussion, I was stating that it is impossible for infinity to exist in reality as an amount, such as an infinite amount of marbles or any infinite amount of time.

But you claimed that there can't be an infinite amount of numbers, not marbles.

Then the question was asked about God being infinite, and I stated that when we say that God is infinite, we are NOT USING THE WORD IN TERMS OF AMOUNT OR QUANTITY, BUT IN TERMS OF QUALITY. You are the one that jumped to the conclusion by saying that I am contradicting myself, when I am clearly not. I used the same one in a different context as it was applied. There was never any contradiction going on here. You are clearly ignoring this, and to me that is just being flat out disingenuous.

And it is just another useless ontological argument. What does it mean to call God (something you make up in your mind) "infinite in quality? Who makes such a determination...besides the worshiper?

You mentioned WLC first, and the quote above you mention Vic Stenger. Its funny you mention both of these gentleman, because they debated twice, one of which can be seen on youtube. Now Vic is the physicists here, but during the debate, it seemed as if WLC was more in depth and had more knowledge of cosmic events than Stenger. Stenger briefly tried to touch on these so called "virtual particles" as evidence that things can pop in to being uncaused out of nothing, and Craig quickly refuted this and the subject was never brought up again. The subject of cosmology wasn't discussed that much, which surprised me, because I thought Stenger would have been the one to show his expertise in the field, guess not. And as far as the book that Stenger wrote is concerned, look, science can in no way offer any explanation to explain the absolute origins of the universe. You cant use science as a way to explain science. The problem with these mainstream scientists (and most naturalists in general), they are good at what they do, but when it comes to drawing logical conclusions such as SCIENCE CANT BE USED TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGINS OF ITS OWN DOMAIN, they fail miserably, and that is the problem with Vic.

Another proof that ******** baffles brains! In case you weren't aware of it, William Lane Craig's main field of expertise is in debate and rhetoric -- this is what he spent most of his active teaching career in...I'm not sure exactly what he does now, but great debaters are not necessarily the most knowledgeable on the subject discussed. And this would be obvious if you're going to tell me that someone like WLC, who is only on the periphery of physics, is more knowledgeable than an actual research physicist who spent over 30 years developing an understanding of the properties of many sub-atomic particles. I don't waste much time watching debates, but this reminds me of Daniel Dennet mostly losing a philosophy debate with a loud mouth dimbulb like Dinesh D'Souza! Since Lawrence Krauss has written a book specifically dealing with the issue of what the term "nothing" means to a physicist in his recent book - A Universe From Nothing, WLC can tell us why we need to insert God to make it happen.