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

[Call_of_the_Wild]

old earth creatonist?

As it stands right now, I am a old earth creationist. But I am open to both ideas.

 

[jasonwill2]

As it stands right now, I am a old earth creationist. But I am open to both ideas.

Ya I was that when I was a Christian too... much to my dad's chagrin. I like astronomy too much to be a Young Earth Creationist.

then later I stopped carring about evolution vs creationism as more important matters of my faith took precedence. That didn't turn out well lol. But at least I'm happy now with my religion unlike before.

 

[HonestJoe]

Well maybe the person made the statement based off of supporting evidence. You assumed that the person lacked the supporting evidence when in fact the supporting evidence may have been the reason why the person made the statement.

I'm assuming nothing, I'm asking questions.

I didn't see any evidence provided in the OP for the existence of a "Supernatural Universe". In fact, given the claim is that the supernatural can't be explained by science, I'd suggest they can't provide any evidence (as that would be applying science to it).

That's the fundamental problem here. People are stating that something exists but are also stating that the recognised method for confirming things exist can't be used on them. It means you can claim literally anything of a particular god which makes the whole process pointless.

It is supported by Christian doctrine, this is the only place where I've seen people try to link the supernatural realm with the physical universe.

Christian doctrine does refer to God existing in a different place to where we are but it also refers to a lot of communication and movement between the two. That is inconsistent with the claim that the "supernatural" is so distant or difference as to be "immune" to scientific method.

Dont understand the question Joe

Scientific method is simply the manner in which things are done. I'm asking what is the difference or barrier between this "universe" and the "supernatural universe" which prevents the use of scientific method in the latter?

 

[work in progress]

Yeah, and based on what you said, whether you accept your "interpretation" of what he said would depend on which model you accept. If you you accept the Standard Model, then you would believe that the beginning of the universe implies the beginning of time.

That's true, but what I've read from cosmologists on the Big Bang - it has more to do with the principles of General Relativity than it would the Standard Model.

But if you accept another model, you will believe that the universe had a beginning, but it was the product of a pre-big bang cause, which does not imply the beginning of time. Second, i dont think what you said had anything to do with time anyway. He basically said there was a difference between "beginning to exist", and "having a beginning". I maintain that there is no difference whatsoever. I began to exist on 4-6-85.....I had a beginning on 4-6-85....It means the same thing. Both statements implies that before the given date, I did not exist.

I've read a few proposals for how multi-universes would work, from String Theorists using M-Theory like Neil Turok, to the "Fecund" Universe (if I got it right) idea of Alan Guth...who came up with the now widely accepted theory that there was a brief inflationary stage in the early universe -- Guth proposes that the Uncertainty Principle itself when applied to the beginning of the Big Bang would have made it an unstable period that would keep popping out an endless stream of new universes besides the one we live in.

Anyway, the consensus from all sides seems to be that you can't just have one universe! If there is one, there is an infinite number, and each one of those universes may have a beginning -- which would be the beginning for the space-time contained within that universe, but not for previous universes in later or dying stages, that were responsible for seeding new universes like ours. We can't step outside of our universe, and it is the beginning of time from our vantage point. But it is not the beginning of everything that has existed.

Our universe had a beginning, and it will die when it expands for another 100 billion years or so, and becomes cold and goes through heat-death...or it might just go poof!...as some physicists propose that the continued rate of expansion of our universe will eventually make space-time itself unstable, and it will vanish in a flash and provide energy for the creation of new universes....now, I think it's time for my afternoon nap!

 

[lunakilo]

He basically said there was a difference between "beginning to exist", and "having a beginning". I maintain that there is no difference whatsoever. I began to exist on 4-6-85.....I had a beginning on 4-6-85....It means the same thing. Both statements implies that before the given date, I did not exist.

How can something begin unless it didn't exist before, therefore making change and it exists? That seems to imply time. I recall Brian Greene going over this once but for the life of me I forget how he addressed it.

Well a 1 meter long wooden stick has a beginning.
A book has a beginning.
Many things have a beginning which is not a beginning in time.

The stick and the book probably also had a beginning in time before which they did not exist (as a book and a stick), but that is not the beginning I am talking about

Yeah, and based on what you said, whether you accept your "interpretation" of what he said would depend on which model you accept. If you you accept the Standard Model, then you would believe that the beginning of the universe implies the beginning of time. But if you accept another model, you will believe that the universe had a beginning, but it was the product of a pre-big bang cause, which does not imply the beginning of time.

Yes, I went on to suggest how the universe could have a beginning which was not a beginning in time.

I am not very knowledgeable about what which cosmological model says about the beginning of the universe.
I have however done enough relativistic calculations to know that time behaves very strangly in a strong gravitational field.
As I understand it a hot and dense universe has a lot of strong gravitational fields that would probably mess with time, so I have no idea how time would behave in such a place.

Maybe it doesn't make sense to talk about a before the big bang because there would be no time without space.
Maybe it does make sense to talk about time without space, and maybe the universe did not just have a beginning, but also began to exist.

I don't know
Do you?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No, science cannot prove or disprove a spiritual being. because science can only explain materialistic things, but not spiritual (non-materialistic things)

 

[Road Warrior]

ya... Science can't prove a universal negative like that.

Agreed. It's a limitation of science.

 

[lunakilo]

Scientific method is simply the manner in which things are done. I'm asking what is the difference or barrier between this "universe" and the "supernatural universe" which prevents the use of scientific method in the latter?

I don't think anyone has said there is a barrier between this universe and the supernatural universe (what ever that is).

I just think people are using the word universe to mean different things.

You could interpret "supernatural universe" as being part of this universe.
Or you could interpret it as something seperate from this universe.
It all depends on your use of the word universe.

 

[cablescavenger]

Even the "high priest" of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, admits "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable". Fine. He guesses God is improbable but, as a scientist who is fully knowledgeable of the limitations of Science, he "cannot know for certain". If Dawkins can't know for certain, then why does a non-scientist Austin Cline believe he can know for certain?

Dawkins did write a book explaining why he felt it was highly improbable. I am not sure you can call it a guess.

Are you suggesting it might not be highly improbable?


If so here is something for you to consider.

People ask "Are you religious?", or "Do you believe in God?", that should be clue enough as to how highly improbable God is.

You never hear people say "Do you believe in soil?", or "Do you believe in animals?"

Why is that? I think you will find it is probability.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's true, but what I've read from cosmologists on the Big Bang - it has more to do with the principles of General Relativity than it would the Standard Model.

Yup, the Standard Model is in fact a GR based model.

I've read a few proposals for how multi-universes would work, from String Theorists using M-Theory like Neil Turok, to the "Fecund" Universe (if I got it right) idea of Alan Guth...who came up with the now widely accepted theory that there was a brief inflationary stage in the early universe -- Guth proposes that the Uncertainty Principle itself when applied to the beginning of the Big Bang would have made it an unstable period that would keep popping out an endless stream of new universes besides the one we live in.

Many of those String theories are subject to the BGV (Borde/Guth/Vilenkin) theorem, and Alan Guth is a advocate of a past finite universe.

Anyway, the consensus from all sides seems to be that you can't just have one universe! If there is one, there is an infinite number, and each one of those universes may have a beginning -- which would be the beginning for the space-time contained within that universe, but not for previous universes in later or dying stages, that were responsible for seeding new universes like ours. We can't step outside of our universe, and it is the beginning of time from our vantage point. But it is not the beginning of everything that has existed.

See, most cosmologists dont realize that when they posit an infinite number of universes that they run in to the problem of infinity, which is mathematically and philosophically absurd. And the bad part for them is, there is no way of getting around it, because the past cannot be infinite, nor could there be an infinite amount of universes out there. Each problem is distinct from the other and cannot be reconciled.

Our universe had a beginning, and it will die when it expands for another 100 billion years or so, and becomes cold and goes through heat-death...or it might just go poof!...as some physicists propose that the continued rate of expansion of our universe will eventually make space-time itself unstable, and it will vanish in a flash and provide energy for the creation of new universes....now, I think it's time for my afternoon nap!

Christians believe that God will intervene before this heat death occurs.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well a 1 meter long wooden stick has a beginning.
A book has a beginning.
Many things have a beginning which is not a beginning in time.

These beginnings that you are referring to are not beginnings of time, but they are beginnings in time. If something has a beginning, it is a temporal event because any type of change can only occur in time.

The stick and the book probably also had a beginning in time before which they did not exist (as a book and a stick), but that is not the beginning I am talking about

Huh??

I am not very knowledgeable about what which cosmological model says about the beginning of the universe.

I'm no expert either but I do know that things tend to get a little crazy once you get in depth of some of these wacky models that these physicists come up with.

I have however done enough relativistic calculations to know that time behaves very strangly in a strong gravitational field.

Dont believe the hype. There is nothing that can slow down time or stop time. Time will always remain consistent, it is our relation to time that may change, but time itself will always remain consistent.

Maybe it doesn't make sense to talk about a before the big bang because there would be no time without space.
Maybe it does make sense to talk about time without space, and maybe the universe did not just have a beginning, but also began to exist.

I don't know
Do you?

Well, there was no temporal "before" the big bang, but there was a "causal" before the big bang, and this causal agent did not exist in time. The problem is this, the past cannot be infinite. That is why we can logically reject all of these pre-big bang models that suggest this infinite amount of regression leading into a past eternal chain of events. It just cant happen. The only way this universe could have began to exist would have to be because of a external, immaterial, and timeless cause. There are no other logical options.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'm assuming nothing, I'm asking questions.

I didn't see any evidence provided in the OP for the existence of a "Supernatural Universe". In fact, given the claim is that the supernatural can't be explained by science, I'd suggest they can't provide any evidence (as that would be applying science to it).

All one would have to do is show the absurdity of a past eternal universe/universes. Once you do that, then it becomes obvious that there could not have been an infinite chain of events. Then we can show scientifically that the universe began to exist. So we would give ourselves two reasons (even though there are about 4 or 5) reasons why the universe began to exist. Once we establish that, we can then focus on the cause of the universe, and the cause of the universe could not have the properties that the universe has (temporality.....material...spatial). So, we can logically determine that the cause of the universe had to have been timeless, immaterial, and a being of tremendous power. Thats how I would do it. Science is only used to corroberate the fact that the universe began to exist, which is a hellava finding, since for thousands of years, scientists and atheists have always maintained that the universe was eternal and static.

That's the fundamental problem here. People are stating that something exists but are also stating that the recognised method for confirming things exist can't be used on them. It means you can claim literally anything of a particular god which makes the whole process pointless.

Science should/cannot be used as a tool to explain absolute origins. This would be similiar to me asking you to explain the origin of your computer just by using the computer itself, and the answer has to lie within the computer, not outside it. You couldnt do it, could you?? The same thing with the universe, we cannot use science as a way to explain the origin of its own domain. We should only use science as a tool to provide answers and explore events within the domain. Big difference here.

Christian doctrine does refer to God existing in a different place to where we are but it also refers to a lot of communication and movement between the two. That is inconsistent with the claim that the "supernatural" is so distant or difference as to be "immune" to scientific method.

God exists in a supernatural realm, and he constantly governs the affairs of the natural universe. I see no problem here.

Scientific method is simply the manner in which things are done. I'm asking what is the difference or barrier between this "universe" and the "supernatural universe" which prevents the use of scientific method in the latter?

Because science can only deal with nature. The supernatural is not nature. Science cannot give a reason how Jesus could rise from the dead, or how he could walk on the water. But it can give reasons as to why I cant walk on water, or why I cant rise from the dead. The supernatural is outside of science jurisdiction. You cant put a spirit in a test tube and do an experiment. That is why.

 

[HonestJoe]

All one would have to do is show the absurdity of a past eternal universe/universes...

I'm not convinced you can do that. There's no specific evidence of such things but I wouldn't say the idea is absurd.

Science should/cannot be used as a tool to explain absolute origins.

Possibly, but we both recognise the "beginning" of what we commonly call the universe isn't the absolute origin.

The same thing with the universe, we cannot use science as a way to explain the origin of its own domain.

My whole point is that science isn't necessarily limited to "the universe". We don't know what, if anything exists "outside" it so we certainly can't definitively state science won't apply.

God exists in a supernatural realm, and he constantly governs the affairs of the natural universe. I see no problem here.

The problem is that that suggests an ability for "the supernatural" to be observed and if it can be observed, scientific method can be applied to it (even if not by living humans).

 

[Road Warrior]

Dawkins did write a book explaining why he felt it was highly improbable. I am not sure you can call it a guess.

Are you saying that Dawkins asserts that he knows there is no God?

If so he can prove it. If not, then it's a guess. Sure, an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless.

For example, I don't believe in the Yeti, but I have no proof it doesn't exist. I know there is no proof it does exist, yet I continue to wonder why the reports of its existence continue.

That's just Yeti. A mortal, physical being. Don't you wonder what came a millisecond before the Big Bang? Don't you wonder why we are here at all? Science talks about cause and effect. The Big Bang was the cause and we are an effect, but aren't you curious about what caused the Big Bang?

 

[lunakilo]

These beginnings that you are referring to are not beginnings of time, but they are beginnings in time.

ok, I am glad we got that one straightened out...

 

[lunakilo]

Dont believe the hype. There is nothing that can slow down time or stop time. Time will always remain consistent, it is our relation to time that may change, but time itself will always remain consistent.

And you of course have some cool scientific paper to back up that claim, or maybe a wiki link that is conviencing?

 

[lunakilo]

All one would have to do is show the absurdity of a past eternal universe/universes. Once you do that, then it becomes obvious that there could not have been an infinite chain of events. Then we can show scientifically that the universe began to exist. So we would give ourselves two reasons (even though there are about 4 or 5) reasons why the universe began to exist. Once we establish that, we can then focus on the cause of the universe, and the cause of the universe could not have the properties that the universe has (temporality.....material...spatial). So, we can logically determine that the cause of the universe had to have been timeless, immaterial, and a being of tremendous power.

I just love the way you state your belifs as fact. it is very conviencing
So this is your chain of reasoning:

1) eternal universe = absurd =>
2) universe began to exist =>
3) cause of the = (non-temporal,non-material,non-special) =>
4) cause of the universe had to have been timeless, immaterial, and a being of tremendous power.

Questions:
@1) Why is an eternal universe absurd?
@3) Is your line of reasoning here that if the cause of the universe had some of the same properties as the universe then it would in fact be the universe or a universe, thus leading to that eternal universe which you foind absurd?
@4) Where did the being come into this? A being implies a conscious thought, how do you get from (non-temporal,non-material,non-special) to conscious thought?

Thats how I would do it. Science is only used to corroberate the fact that the universe began to exist, which is a hellava finding, since for thousands of years, scientists and atheists have always maintained that the universe was eternal and static.

Hmmm, as far as I know until the 16th century the prevailing model of the universe was one with the earth in the middle surrounded by Celestial spheres which were eternal. I don't think that was something all those atheists who lived thousands of years ago(!) made up
Primum Mobile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TimeBean]

The path of least resistance and least repetitions, from the perspective of abiogenesis, would be inevitable. A universe formed from matter eternal is absurd, however the free lunch of matter is not as long as there exists the potential energy needed for vacuum fluctuation, thus zero point energy. Something of a lunch on credit. Occam's Razor, nonetheless, is a lazy bum, working as little as possible, thus, not much different than man, it would require an autonomous entity to do the work and, through the evolution of collisions that being would evolve and take over from the point of perpetual autonomy.
That being would follow this for many reasons, but the constraints of space in a finite material universe would force those next renditions of life to be comparitively miniscule. As little as a motion of the deity's space equivalent to sound would alter the paths of the ongoing collisions to create, at will, a small percentage of collisions to be visible, as photons. The photons, now having myriads of centers for these collisons would form intergalactic gases, accreting into stars and galaxies in motion to further that autonomy. Quantum fractal patterns of life's DNA would replicate within these areas and, after a few days at the cosmic level, eras would take place in the new earthen-stellar-galctic regions. The being could taske a day off.

 

[PolyHedral]

The path of least resistance and least repetitions, from the perspective of abiogenesis, would be inevitable. A universe formed from matter eternal is absurd, however the free lunch of matter is not as long as there exists the potential energy needed for vacuum fluctuation, thus zero point energy. Something of a lunch on credit. Occam's Razor, nonetheless, is a lazy bum, working as little as possible, thus, not much different than man, it would require an autonomous entity to do the work and, through the evolution of collisions that being would evolve and take over from the point of perpetual autonomy.
That being would follow this for many reasons, but the constraints of space in a finite material universe would force those next renditions of life to be comparitively miniscule. As little as a motion of the deity's space equivalent to sound would alter the paths of the ongoing collisions to create, at will, a small percentage of collisions to be visible, as photons. The photons, now having myriads of centers for these collisons would form intergalactic gases, accreting into stars and galaxies in motion to further that autonomy. Quantum fractal patterns of life's DNA would replicate within these areas and, after a few days at the cosmic level, eras would take place in the new earthen-stellar-galctic regions. The being could taske a day off.

The universe is a lot more complicated than you think. I'll leave it at that.

 

[TimeBean]

The universe is a lot more complicated than you think. I'll leave it at that.

No argument about the universe, but my thinking is probably more complicated than YOU think. Trust me on that... :rainbow1: