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

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We do run into the BGV theorem a lot when dealing with you. And no matter how many people who tell you that the BGV theorem that does NOT prove a finite universe, you always come back claiming that it does. There is indeed no escape :sad:

I dont know whether you are just in flat out denial or you are just flat out disingenuous, but the BGV theorem does prove a finite universe. I can give you quotes from Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin stating such, so please, please

Well I guess you are correct that if it is the first there cannot be anything before it.

But I think you are letting your dislike for infinity cloud your judgement.
You don't like infinity so you want there to be a first cause that takes care of the trouble of infinite regression.
You call this first cause God.

No, the point is, because of the reasons I laid out, a timeless cause is necessary. God is the only entity that can be timeless (without the universe), and yet have a will to create. And what is this about me not liking infinity? Because I said that infinity cant exist in reality?? No, the facts are the facts, and I go where the evidence takes me, which is what science is suppose to be all about in the first place. People claim to be science but once science comes to a screeching halt and metaphysics step in, then it is all of a sudden cool to postulate ridiculous things like the infinitude of the past, universes popping in to being out of nothing, and voo doo science involving macroevolution. It never fails.

The trouble is that all you do is wrap the infinite regress in fancy paper and call it something else.

What do I call it, Luna?

Depending on what you mean by "physical reality" and "transcend physical reality" you could maybe make a sensible argument for the first line, but that this thing which 'transcends physical reality' has to be a being is not a given.
I know you see design in the universe and therefore see the need for a designer, but that is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what you see, and not proof that a designer is needed.
I don't see design, so I don't see the need for a designer, and thus no thinking being at the beginning of it all.

If the universe began to exist, that mean that there was no physical reality before it, so whatever gave physical reality its existence could not itself be PHYSICAL REALITY. Is this really that hard to understand, to grasp??? This is elementary logic here. If something began to exist, it has to have an external cause. We shouldn't be discussing this kind of logic and reasoning. If you look around you, everything that you see had a beginning. I mean, cmon now. As far as design is concerned, hey, if you believe that the human body configured itself from a mindless, unguided, and blind process, then Christians are not the only ones accepting something by faith, because it takes a lot of faith to believe something like that.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Those real numbers you seem to think are not real. That is basic math.

And how is that an answer...

Numbers exist as abstract objects and they are not objectively real. I said that an infinite set or any infinite amount of something cannot exist in reality.

People have provided you with plenty of answers.
You may not find them adequate, but you have made no attempt to understand the answers by asking questions about things you don't understand or disagree with. You just say say "doesn't make sense" and move on.

So show me a quote of someone answering the problem of infinity and time. Please, can you do that for me?

 

[EnochSDP]

Go learn some actual math. The empty set is the beginning, not 1.

0 is neutral.between negative and positive.you can not add 0+0 and get anything and you also can not take away into negative without something already being there as a positive.so a positive number must start and the first number is 1.

 

[McBell]

0 is neutral.between negative and positive.you can not add 0+0 and get anything and you also can not take away into negative without something already being there as a positive.so a positive number must start and the first number is 1.

again you completely ignore the slew of numbers between 0 and 1.

 

[Road Warrior]

We do run into the BGV theorem a lot when dealing with you. And no matter how many people who tell you that the BGV theorem that does NOT prove a finite universe, you always come back claiming that it does.

I had to google "BGV Theorem" since this is the first time I've read about it: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe « Debunking William Lane Craig

Is CotW taking Dr. Craig's point of view?:

Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:

f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

However, Craig’s main problem is that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,

What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

 

[jasonwill2]

Ok


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.

Yes, and I also claim I don't understand a *********** thing the man wrote after page 100 when I hit real world calculus. So no I don't understand what lead the man to write that and more importantly, you were referring a totally different book written in the 80's... the one I was referring to was written in 2005. It's mostly decoration for now until I learn some real math.

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

Because if it has multiple then it has at least one.

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.

Speaking from that point, I didn't consider that their might be multiple creators. But that wouldn't really fit into my belief of pantheism unless god has mutli-personality disorder, which is completely likely if so. Actually, antisocial disorder might explain why he doesn't bother with us too :areyoucra

Actually, that idea sounds really awesome... and to be honest in a way I say that The Universe comes in various different incarnations that are the different aspects of god still in uncreation form (read: metaphysical spirits) as in contrast to the newer creation form (read: matter and energy and physical stuff).

God is weird.

 

[Turing]

To answer the original question: maybe.

We would need to first advance our science to the point that we can make the appropriate observations from a completely unfiltered and unbiased position. Perhaps requiring some sort of machine-intelligence to either prove or disprove the existence or make the call after transcending our own intelligence.

Otherwise, it just won't ever happen.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I had to google "BGV Theorem" since this is the first time I've read about it: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe « Debunking William Lane Craig

"Our argument shows that null and time like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided that the average expansion condition is greater than 0, hold along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of space-time in a finite proper time." (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin 2003, pg 3.)

The good thing about this theorem is that it applies to any universe with an average Hubble expansion greater than zero. Even if Einstein's equations gets modified, the implications would STILL hold. The theorem holds even with cosmologies in higher dimensions, like brane cosmology and such. The only way to bypass the theorem is to postulate a model that has an average Hubble expansion less than zero or where the expansion is equal to zero. If you were to do that then you would have to deal with other problems involving bouncing universes and the unrealistic deconstructions of time. THERE IS NO ESCAPE. The universe began to exist whether you people like it or not, believe it or not, agree with it or not.

Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

The theorem doesn't have to "rule out" the Hartle/Hawking proposal because the model actually has a beginning to space-time. In the H/H model the universe begins to exist, just not at a singularity point, and they had to posit imaginary time to even get the model to work. This has been the problem with most universal models, the more they try to negate a finite universe, it has the opposite effect.

Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:

f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

Read the quote, he said the short answer is "yes". If the answer to the question is yes, then there is little room for a "no". Either the universe had a beginning or it didnt, if the answer is yes, then an answer of "no" is ruled out by default.

However, Craig’s main problem is that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,

What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

Isn't this the same thing I responded to before???

 

[lunakilo]

I had to google "BGV Theorem" since this is the first time I've read about it: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe « Debunking William Lane Craig

Is CotW taking Dr. Craig's point of view?:

Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning&#8221.

Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:

f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

However, Craig’s main problem is that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,

What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

Nice try Road Warrior, others have tried, but unfortunately Call_of_the_Wild never gets further than:

f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Speaking from that point, I didn't consider that their might be multiple creators. But that wouldn't really fit into my belief of pantheism unless god has mutli-personality disorder, which is completely likely if so. Actually, antisocial disorder might explain why he doesn't bother with us too :areyoucra

Actually, that idea sounds really awesome... and to be honest in a way I say that The Universe comes in various different incarnations that are the different aspects of god still in uncreation form (read: metaphysical spirits) as in contrast to the newer creation form (read: matter and energy and physical stuff).

God is weird.

This is fine, really. To speak frankly, as a Heathen personally I have nothing against Satanists nor their concepts. My religion is rather strictly exclusory [is that a word?] and personal, so you need not adhere to it, and may have a system valid for you alongside mine. It matters not to me.

I cannot reconcile the idea even of a single over-God, based on what I perceive as evidence. Again, you may note I was hedgey and non-certain about there being 'evidence' of any kind that the universe is a Creation, per se. I merely posited an 'if/then', based on all possible conditions.

but I agree: the Gods are weird. And we are made in their image!

 

[lunakilo]

To answer the original question: maybe.

We would need to first advance our science to the point that we can make the appropriate observations from a completely unfiltered and unbiased position. Perhaps requiring some sort of machine-intelligence to either prove or disprove the existence or make the call after transcending our own intelligence.

Otherwise, it just won't ever happen.

Nice to see someone staying on topic

 

[lunakilo]

What do I call it, Luna?

Not you don't call it Luna (I think ), as I wrote in the line BEFORE the one you quoted (don't you ever read peoples posts?) you call it God.

 

[jasonwill2]

This is fine, really. To speak frankly, as a Heathen personally I have nothing against Satanists nor their concepts. My religion is rather strictly exclusory [is that a word?] and personal, so you need not adhere to it, and may have a system valid for you alongside mine. It matters not to me.

I cannot reconcile the idea even of a single over-God, based on what I perceive as evidence. Again, you may note I was hedgey and non-certain about there being 'evidence' of any kind that the universe is a Creation, per se. I merely posited an 'if/then', based on all possible conditions.

but I agree: the Gods are weird. And we are made in their image!

In some ways the idea that we are made in their image is very worrisome. But yes a full-blown multi-personality AND panthesitic god would be quite humorous is what I was trying to say, even if I have something that slightly resembles that without the associated things that make it an illness. So I guess my god doesn't have multi-personality disorder but it would be funny if I described him as such.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

In some ways the idea that we are made in their image is very worrisome. But yes a full-blown multi-personality AND panthesitic god would be quite humorous is what I was trying to say, even if I have something that slightly resembles that without the associated things that make it an illness. So I guess my god doesn't have multi-personality disorder but it would be funny if I described him as such.

Hm, I find it a bit of a comfort; I may possess some small spark from someone who is actually important and powerful. As may you.

Heh, since he is yours you can play with him as you dare. Some peoples' dad's are strict and tend to beat them if they step out of some arbitrary line; some have a sense of humor. Hope we share the latter

 

[jasonwill2]

Hm, I find it a bit of a comfort; I may possess some small spark from someone who is actually important and powerful. As may you.

Heh, since he is yours you can play with him as you dare. Some peoples' dad's are strict and tend to beat them if they step out of some arbitrary line; some have a sense of humor. Hope we share the latter

I don't think god is either cruel or humorous... he just wants us to find the strength within ourselves. What is worth more? To have someone else fix you car? Or you fix it yourself and learn a whole lot more and get a much better appreciation for how it is put together? I mean you do get some direction as how to fix it, but the fact that you did it yourself means you learned something you couldn't of if someone else fixed it. I think that's what god is like... he wants us to be self-sufficient and find the strength within ourselves.

But perhaps that is too deep.

On the original subject, I still do think it's possible to prove the existence of god if he did something like showed up and had scientists observe him do god-stuff.

 

[EnochSDP]

I am answering the question.
No science can not prove that god does not exist!end of discussion!

 

[jasonwill2]

I am answering the question.
No science can not prove that god does not exist!end of discussion!

Yes but it can prove that he does, but since it hasn't yet it may not be all that likely. that, or we have the wrong idea of what god is.

 

[Road Warrior]

Yes but it can prove that he does, but since it hasn't yet it may not be all that likely. that, or we have the wrong idea of what god is.

My thinking leads to me to the latter conclusion.

 

[Turing]

I am answering the question.
No science can not prove that god does not exist!end of discussion!

Who can possibly guess what our "science" will be like a hundred years from now, much less a thousand or a million years?

Hasn't the advance of "science" already disproved the existance of many Gods throughout our history? How many people today still worship a Sun God?

 

[EnochSDP]

Who can possibly guess what our "science" will be like a hundred years from now, much less a thousand or a million years?

Hasn't the advance of "science" already disproved the existance of many Gods throughout our history? How many people today still worship a Sun God?

Who like Zeus,Baal,Amun Ra,Molech and such...you havent disproved any of them.Just that what those Gods and people said was untrue.
Elohim-YHWH-has yet to be disproven.