Does science prove the existence of god?

[Orthodox]

Duet

Did you mean that was your last response to me? I hope not, I thought we had a good debate going.

orthodox

 

[true blood]

trueblood,
Say that out loud to yourself 5 times and let it really sink in.
How does it sound?
I mean..logically.

This world contains many different realities. You know that. And if anyone on these forums actually viewed the true reality they would probably go mad or at least everyone would deem them as insane. But in our world we form our own realities and these realities take a type of form when their is agreement. My reality could be wrong but my theory does sink in...for me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Did you mean that was your last response to me? I hope not, I thought we had a good debate going.

Of course not. I respect and appreciate your input. Thanks.

 

[Orthodox]

Duet,

You said,

I choose to believe only in those things which are evidenced.

What did you find wrong with the evidence I presented earlier on thids thread. Was there a problem with it?

I likewise respect and appreciate your thoughs on this matter.

orthodox

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Orthodox-- Hello again, friend! It's good to hear from you. How did your exams go? Please excuse the lateness of my reply. I've been away from the forums.

The universe has not always existed - from a scientific perspective anyway.

My understanding is that because time is finite, and not an infinite linear continuum stretching back forever, we cannot speak of the nothingness "before" the BB. Any theoretical nothingness that existed "before" the BB would have existed for exactly zero seconds, which is equivalent to not existing. I could accurately say that Santa existed for zero seconds after all.

2) You said, "The universe is not "perfect" in any respect--it is what it is, and doesn't need our a priori notions of what constitutes "perfection" to exist the way it does".

I agree, the universe is not perfect, but that does not mean it never was. By the way, are you acknowledging that human being's have an a priori notion of perfection?

No.

If you say the universe is not perfect what standard are you judging it by?

Actually, I was using ArabianHorse's standard. He said that the universe is perfect because of its order, harmony, etc....but I argued that if those are the requirements for perfection, the universe is not perfect becuase it is not entirely orderly and harmonious.

If you have some idea of a perfection you have never seen and deny exists, where does this concept of perfection come from.

I'll start another thread on this...this is off topic.

By the way, I read your Journal thing. I was really interesting and well written. You said that you did some Astronomy and Theology. Is that at College? What are you studying, if you don't mind me asking?

I took theology for three years at my Catholic high school. One year covered the New Testament, one covered Church history, and one covered Church social teaching and modern issues. I am currently taking a class on astronomy and space physics, and my major is physics. You're in college as well, as I recall--what are you studying?

 

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles!

Great to have you on the thread mate. No worries about your late reply – occasionally I also respond late. My exams went well, thanks for asking.

Ok,

Quote: (Originally Posted by Orthodox)

The universe has not always existed - from a scientific perspective anyway.

My understanding is that because time is finite, and not an infinite linear continuum stretching back forever, we cannot speak of the nothingness "before" the BB. Any theoretical nothingness that existed "before" the BB would have existed for exactly zero seconds, which is equivalent to not existing. I could accurately say that Santa existed for zero seconds after all.

That’s correct. The ineluctable fact is that what existed before (I can’t really avoid using that word) the BB was not even an empty vaccum, it was less than that, it was truly no thing. When we describe this nothingness 'before' to the Big Bang we have to place it outside a timeline that started at the Big Bang. I suppose it is useful to our time orientated minds to say that 'nothing' was 'before' the BB. As with what you said before the BB there was no time, there also wasn't space or matter.

The problem for atheists is that in the absence of time there is no cause-effect process – any cause must necessarily exist prior (in a strictly temporal sense) to its’ effect – thus eliminating a natural cause of the universe. Something that was not contained in the Big Bang Singularity Point (BBSP) must have ignited the universe, an unbiased analysis of the facts suggests that this is commonsense. A number of people have proposed alternative non-supernatural causes for the universe, I will list a couple of them.

1. Paul Davies suggested that the universe could have originated through Quantum Tunnelling (The process by which virtual particles suddenly appear at a random point in space and split into their particle anti-particle parts for a moment before they rejoin to form a virtual particle and disappear to another part of the universe). This, however, cannot work because it presupposes a temporal dimension by which quantum space-time fluctuations can occur. Davies has since admitted (about the universe) that there is "something going on behind it all".
2. Peter Atkins in his book The Creation Revisited postulated that before the BB was a dust of swirling mathematical points which combined and re-combined until through chance they created space-time. The problems being of course that the swirling mathematical points presuppose both the time and space they are supposed to have generated. These mathematical points also comprise of something and do not find a home in the scientifically concluded fact that there was ‘nothingness’ before the BB.

The problem faced by atheists (and indeed anyone who is not a theist) is so profound that many prominent astronomers and astrophysicists have been fairly blunt in their association of the Big Bang with the Christian idea of Creation Ex Nihilo.

Astronomer George Smoot, project lead of NASA’s COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite, said, "There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang and the Christian notion of creation from nothing". Smoot called the "ripples" in the Big Bang Background Radiation Echo which the COBE discovered "the fingerprints of the maker", and "machining marks from the creation of the universe".

What is your personal take on the question of what started the Big Bang?

Quote: (Originally Posted by Orthodox)

2) You said, "The universe is not "perfect" in any respect--it is what it is, and doesn't need our a priori notions of what constitutes "perfection" to exist the way it does".
I agree, the universe is not perfect, but that does not mean it never was. By the way, are you acknowledging that human being's have an a priori notion of perfection?

No.

Ok then. Do you believe it unjust to kill black people or homosexual people? If so why? On the same note, do you believe that you have a ‘right’ to believe what you want?

Quote:

If you have some idea of a perfection you have never seen and deny exists, where does this concept of perfection come from.

I'll start another thread on this...this is off topic.

Keep it here if you want, I think this is has import to this particular thread.

I am currently taking a class on astronomy and space physics, and my major is physics. You're in college as well, as I recall--what are you studying?

I just recently finished up some work I was doing in a philosophy course. I am now going to start a degree in mathematics and physics. I have always enjoyed physics and have worked through a number of university level texts books on the subject. I particularly enjoy Cosmology. What area are you trying to get into career wise? What branch of Physics are you most interested in?

orthodox

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The reality is God exists. If we asked every single human on this planet whether they believed there is a God or not, the majority would answer yes. Therefore, via majority agreement, we have a reality. So even through scientific methods, God is proven.

Woof! I don't know what I was thinking when I went to college!

This is a classic (truly a "textbook") example of the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority - "Eat at Joe's Diner! Five thousand flies can't be wrong!!"

True Blood - this is the best you have for a proof of the existence of God? Hell, I'm an Agnostic, and I can do better than this.

This may be one of the worst attempts I've seen on this site to make, or prove, a point.

TVOR

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a bit like grandma's Christmas package ...

You open it. You do not wish to hurt anyone's feelings, but you stare at the offering with increasing contempt. Soon you're telling it what you think of it and then stop, realizing that you're polemicizing with a fruitcake.

 

[Scott1]

Oh for cripes sake Deut!

Just once I would like to read one of your posts without having to look up a word in the dictionary!:biglaugh:

I can't add anything usefull, so I'll just add: Mmmmmm, fruitcake.

Thanks for helping me grow my vocabulary!

Peace,
Scott

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Damn, SOGFPP, I kind of like you, but it's really hard to respect someone who has to look up fruitcake in the dictionary. Most Orthodox Protestants know what it is intuitively.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Orthodox-- Glad to hear your exams went well. I have a feeling you and I may want to stay in contact in the future.

That’s correct. The ineluctable fact is that what existed before (I can’t really avoid using that word) the BB was not even an empty vaccum, it was less than that, it was truly no thing. When we describe this nothingness 'before' to the Big Bang we have to place it outside a timeline that started at the Big Bang. I suppose it is useful to our time orientated minds to say that 'nothing' was 'before' the BB. As with what you said before the BB there was no time, there also wasn't space or matter.

Ah, but Orthodox my friend, the premise from which you began your scientific argument for a deity was: "If nothing created the universe then the universe must have always existed (in one form or another anyway)." If we agree that the universe has always existed, that argument loses its foundation.

The problem for atheists is that in the absence of time there is no cause-effect process– any cause must necessarily exist prior (in a strictly temporal sense) to its’ effect – thus eliminating a natural cause of the universe.

I'm not sure how we can ever eliminate a natural cause of anything without being omnipotent. To invoke a "supernatural" cause is tantamount to saying "I don't know".

On a bit of a sidenote, I would argue that anything that interacts with nature is, by definition, natural; though it may have properties of which we have little understanding.

Something that was not contained in the Big Bang Singularity Point (BBSP) must have ignited the universe, an unbiased analysis of the facts suggests that this is commonsense.

Common sense? Since when does common sense have anything to do with the frustratingly wierd world of quantum physics, astrophysics, and relativity? Check out Deut's thread on Common Sense and Purpose (I can't remember which forum it's in). Let's not forget that for our ancestors, who had no knowledge of electrons and electromagnetism, it was common sense that something/someone supernatural, high above the Earth, must cause lightning. "Common sense" generally seems to push us in the direction of assuming supernatural causes for anything outside our sphere of understanding.

The problem faced by atheists (and indeed anyone who is not a theist) is so profound that many prominent astronomers and astrophysicists have been fairly blunt in their association of the Big Bang with the Christian idea of Creation Ex Nihilo.

But the universe didn't come from nothing....I thought we agreed that the universe has always existed.

What is your personal take on the question of what started the Big Bang?

Ask a caveman what is his personal take on the question of what causes lightning, then get back to me.

Ok then. Do you believe it unjust to kill black people or homosexual people? If so why? On the same note, do you believe that you have a ‘right’ to believe what you want?

Yes, I believe it is unjust to kill people just because they are of a certain race or sexual orientation. Why? Ultimately, because of my genetics and my environment. More specifically, because I desire an orderly society in which people get along, rather than a chaotic one where people kill each other all the time. Yes, I believe the government of society should not prevent me from believing what I want.

I just recently finished up some work I was doing in a philosophy course. I am now going to start a degree in mathematics and physics. I have always enjoyed physics and have worked through a number of university level texts books on the subject. I particularly enjoy Cosmology. What area are you trying to get into career wise? What branch of Physics are you most interested in?

That is too funny-- Cosmology (and astrophysics) is precisely the area that I am interested in! We definitely need to stay in touch...I'm sure you're as excited as I am to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos. :jiggy:

Tell you what-- let's make a deal regarding our future studies into this fascinating subject. I will freely, even enthusiastically, admit that I am biased (as is everyone). I do not believe in a personal god and therefore, being human, I undoubtedly have the propensity to see only the evidence that supports this notion. (A similar bias existed, I'm sure, years ago when I did believe in a personal god.) Here's the deal: as scientists in the earnest pursuit of truth, let's agree that we are both already biased, and must make an effort to overcome this and be truly objective; that what we believe to be true may be wrong; that we are willing to alter our opinions and beliefs given new reasoning/evidence; and finally, that we will seek not to fulfill our beliefs but to find only the truth, wherever it may lie. Deal?

 

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

Great to hear from you. Sorry it has taken me over a day to reply – I was away from home for a while. I found this post of yours very interesting.

If we agree that the universe has always existed, that argument loses its foundation.

But I don’t agree that there was something (natural) before the BB. I said that there was nothing, not even a vacuum. In the absence of time, matter and space no thing could exist spatially or temporally. I don’t characterise ‘nothing’ as anything more than the total absence of anything (including emptiness).

I'm not sure how we can ever eliminate a natural cause of anything without being omnipotent. To invoke a "supernatural" cause is tantamount to saying "I don't know".

That’s true, we can’t know everything about everything. Even so, we can say, on the basis of our current knowledge, that, (I’ll address Quantum Cosmology later) if the prevailing non-quantum view of the BB is correct then it is vanishingly improbable that there was anything natural in existence to be the cause of the universe.

Since when does common sense have anything to do with the frustratingly weird world of quantum physics, astrophysics, and relativity? Let's not forget that for our ancestors, who had no knowledge of electrons and electromagnetism, it was common sense that something/someone supernatural, high above the Earth, must cause lightning. "Common sense" generally seems to push us in the direction of assuming supernatural causes for anything outside our sphere of understanding.

My claim that commonsense indicated a supernatural creator ran along these lines.

1. Something cannot bring itself into existence. (ie Causa sui)
2. Nothing natural existed before the BB.
3. Therefore, something other than the natural (ie the supernatural) brought the universe into existence.

If these premises ring true then the conclusion is commonsense. However, as you have highlighted, along with the rise of Quantum Mechanics has come a number of complicating factors. So far in this thread I haven’t ventured from the relative simplicity of the more classical approach to physics, still, Quantum Cosmology is very interesting and does require a totally different approach to conventional BB Cosmology.

The caveman you describe made the ‘commonsense’ assumption that a god caused lightning based on a lack of evidence (ie. he didn’t know about electricity). On the other hand, we have evidence to suggest that no natural explanation is possible for the causation of the universe. Commonsense should push us only in the direction of the evidence; this is all I intended it to mean.

I desire an orderly society in which people get along, rather than a chaotic one where people kill each other all the time. Yes, I believe the government of society should not prevent me from believing what I want.

Why is order preferable to chaos? If there is no meaning behind life why is its perpetuation desirable? What is wrong with forcing somebody to believe what you want him or her to, why should people have a choice in anything?

Cosmology (and astrophysics) is precisely the area that I am interested in! We definitely need to stay in touch...I'm sure you're as excited as I am to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos.

Wow! What a coincidence! We certainly do need to stay in touch. I know exactly what you mean about being existed to unravel the mysteries of the universe. I can’t imagine not being drawn to a realm of study that can so profoundly impact the nature of humankind’s existence. It is also fascinating how ‘frustratingly weird’ the universe is.

Tell you what-- let's make a deal regarding our future studies into this fascinating subject. I will freely, even enthusiastically, admit that I am biased (as is everyone). I do not believe in a personal god and therefore, being human, I undoubtedly have the propensity to see only the evidence that supports this notion. (A similar bias existed, I'm sure, years ago when I did believe in a personal god.) Here's the deal: as scientists in the earnest pursuit of truth, let's agree that we are both already biased, and must make an effort to overcome this and be truly objective; that what we believe to be true may be wrong; that we are willing to alter our opinions and beliefs given new reasoning/evidence; and finally, that we will seek not to fulfil our beliefs but to find only the truth, wherever it may lie. Deal?

Deal! (With a few stipulations)

I will try and fulfil my belief as a Christian in my usual way, by following the Bible. While this may seem to be an obstacle to scientific inquiry it is not. The Bible says "Put everything to the test; hold fast that which is good." I think this the very basis of objectivity. Being a Christian should not make me subjective; it should make me more objective. Keeping an open mind doesn’t necessarily mean keeping an empty mind. My quest is to find the truth, right now I think I have found it but, if I find sufficient evidence to the contrary, I will follow the evidence. I imagine it is the same with you.

Just as a side note, I find it interesting that you were once a theist. I myself was an atheist until a few years ago.

orthodox

 

[linwood]

As with what you said before the BB there was no time, there also wasn't space

I know we`ve been over this before Mr.Spinkles but exactly how is this possible?
How can this be?

There must be space ..yes?..No?
Even when you have nothing that nothing is taking up space.
Even when space is completely filled with matter..the space still exists it`s just occupied.

I`ll never get it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But I don’t agree that there was something (natural) before the BB. I said that there was nothing, not even a vacuum. In the absence of time, matter and space no thing could exist spatially or temporally.

Not all nothings are created equal. There are any number of ideas floating around the halls of quantum cosmology, not the least of which are the Wheeler-DeWitt multiverse and the Hawking "no boundary" condition.

Homo sapiens have been around for perhaps 120K years. Copernicus was born a little over 500 years ago. And in that sliver of time we have advanced to the point where we actually have highly competent theoreticians discussing the antecedents of the Big Bang. Perhaps we should forgive them if they don't solve the problem overnight or, what's worse, dare to arrive at theories that transcend our 'common sense'. As Darwin once remarked: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science".

-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871

 

[Orthodox]

Linwood,

There must be space ..yes?..No?
Even when you have nothing that nothing is taking up space.
Even when space is completely filled with matter..the space still exists it`s just occupied.

The BB is effectivley the sheet of space-time being stretched out. It is useful to imagine the universe as objects on an infinitley large rubber sheet. In the BB the sheet is stretched out from a point of infinite density. Imagine stretching out a big rubber sheet on which you have draw circles. The further you stretch the sheet, the further away the circles are from each other. Likewise, the matter in our universe is being streched away from itself. Space-time is the 'space' in which something can reside, nothing (natural anyway) can exist off the sheet of space-time and, since the BB is the sheet being streched out from infinite density, nothing (natural) therefore existed 'before' the BB.

 

[linwood]

I understand the concept of the big bang.
I can even comprehand the universe devoid of any and all matter.
I cannot comprehend the non-existence of space however.

I don`t see how it is physically possible.

 

[Orthodox]

Linwood,

I understand the concept of the big bang.
I can even comprehand the universe devoid of any and all matter.
I cannot comprehend the non-existence of space however.

I don`t see how it is physically possible.

Don't try and imagine a space in which there is no space. That is impossible. The non-existence of space is not a physical reality. There is no physical essence in the nature of space-time's non-existence.

I had a picture which helps demonstrate this but I can't get it to go on my post. Is it possible to put a picture in a post?

orthodox

​

​

​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Space-time is the 'space' in which something can reside, nothing (natural anyway) can exist off the sheet of space-time and, since the BB is the sheet being streched out from infinite density, nothing (natural) therefore existed 'before' the BB.

How sad that so many cosmologist don't have your grasp of the obvious. Your parenthetical, of course, is simply another case of poisoning the well.

 

[Scott1]

I had a picture which helps demonstrate this but I can't get it to go on my post. Is it possible to put a picture in a post?

That is a feature available only to site supporters.... one of the many great reasons sign up!
Become a ReligiousForums.com Supporter (updated)
... and now back to your regularly scheduled program......

 

[Orthodox]

Duet,

Not all nothings are created equal. There are any number of ideas floating around the halls of quantum cosmology, not the least of which are the Wheeler-DeWitt multiverse and the Hawking "no boundary" condition.

In the common Imaginary Time and Multiverse theories there is no singularity. At Planck Time (10^ -43 seconds) the universe is supposed to have existed, or had the potential to exist, in a multiplicity of ways via a Super State Wave Function. There would be no 'nothing' in these theories but there are a number of problems with their basic precepts.

orthodox