Does science prove the existence of god?

[Ceridwen018]

i simply presume that god is uncaused because at some point of the 'chain of causes' so to speak, you have to have an uncaused cause - there's no way to get around it.

If we all trusted our simplest presumptions with no question, we'd still be drawing pictures of antelope on cave walls with blood and feces.

The fact is, that there is 'a way to get around it'. The natural world is not limited to what you are able to understand.

if what i believe is true, you know it just as well as i do. so my answer to the question "what caused god?" is that i don't believe anything caused god - god is uncaused, god has no cause, god just is.

"If" being the operative word, of course.

interacting with us, acting as an actual being in the universe

God does not interact with us in a physical manner. Could you specify exactly how he interacts with us?

would mean god telling us who he is, or revealing himself.

Could you explain that? What does god tell us? How is he revealed? What is revealed?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Ceridwen -

LMAO - you let me take 4 pages of type to set this up, THEN you come in to steal my thunder? I'll bet you wait at the edge of the stage to shout out the punchline just before the comedian gets to it.

Actually, I'm glad to see you weigh in on this thread. I rather expected Spinkles to jump in here. You've done a good job taking the debate where I was hoping to lead it - and in a very direct manner.

Admiringly,
TVOR

 

[Ceridwen018]

Lol, sorry Voice!

We need to have an "I've got Dibs" thread in the Atheist/Agnostic forums to keep everyone up to date!

 

[Orthodox]

Ceridwen,

You said about the need to have an uncaused 'prime mover'.

The fact is, that there is 'a way to get around it'.

Which way is this? I hope your not just "trusting your presumption" on this.

orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

Duet,

your ability to sustain such a belief is predicated upon your willingness to hold your God(s) to much lower standards than nature. It is the classic case of the argument from ignorance producing a God-of-the-Gaps.

Ok then.... Why don't you enlighten me with all that wisdom that you, but not countless scientists qualified in this field, have found.

the search for naturalistic causes disqualifies itself from the causation of the universe (it being the causation of nature).

You are wrong.

Another nugget of duet's ineluctable wisdom! Seriously, do you have any reason to believe that the universe existed before the BB? If it did not there is no case for a natural cause for the universe.

What you call probability is, again, simply argument from ignorance - you've managed to convince yourself that the probability of !{X} is a function of your ignorance of {X}.

Once again, please show me the irefutable evidence that your claims are based on.

orthodox

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Ceridwen,
Which way is this? I hope your not just "trusting your presumption" on this.
orthodox

She is saying that there is a way around his dilemma - that just because he doesn't understand some things (in this case, how the universe came into being), doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or didn't happen. Effectively, she is telling him that if he were a little more educated in the science of what we are discussing, he might understand (though this is not a given). If he understood the science, his dilemma might be negated. Then again, maybe not.

Ceridwen,
Sorry to take the response - please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the intent of your statement.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Orthodox]

TVOR,

Ceridwen said:

If we all trusted our simplest presumptions with no question, we'd still be drawing pictures of antelope on cave walls with blood and feces.

The fact is, that there is 'a way to get around it'. The natural world is not limited to what you are able to understand.

It seems to me she is suggesting that science gives her 'a way to get around it'. If not all she is doing is 'presuming'.

Effectively, she is telling him that if he were a little more educated in the science of what we are discussing, he might understand (though this is not a given). If he understood the science, his dilemma might be negated. Then again, maybe not.

I understand the science. I still see a 'dilemma'. Do you understand the science?

orthodox

 

[The Voice of Reason]

TVOR,
Ceridwen said:
It seems to me she is suggesting that science gives her 'a way to get around it'. If not all she is doing is 'presuming'.
I understand the science. I still see a 'dilemma'. Do you understand the science?
orthodox

Before we go further with this, I'll wait to see if Ceridwen wants to correct my interpretation of what she said. Otherwise, this baby will split into about 5 different directions.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Orthodox]

good idea.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Alright boys, let's do this.

It seems to me she is suggesting that science gives her 'a way to get around it'. If not all she is doing is 'presuming'.

I do not see the necessity of an uncaused 'prime mover'. Of course, such a theory is essential for a belief in god, however I think it is much more probable that the universe has always existed.

Correct me if I am wrong of course, but the main reason why chronic believes in a 'prime mover' is because of his belief in god.

Bottom line, even if there was a 'prime mover', that is still not evidence for god. With quantum mechanics and the like, it is possible that a 'prime mover' could be purely scientific.

Does this clear things up?

 

[Orthodox]

Ceridwen! Good to be in a dicussion with you again.

I do not see the necessity of an uncaused 'prime mover'. Of course, such a theory is essential for a belief in god, however I think it is much more probable that the universe has always existed.

For a number of reasons science prohibits an eternal universe.
1. The second Law of thermodynamics.
2. The expanding universe.
3. The impossibility of an infinite series of anything.
4. General Relativity

Correct me if I am wrong of course, but the main reason why chronic believes in a 'prime mover' is because of his belief in god.

I don't know about that. However, I do know that the main reason Aristotle believed in a god was because of the need for a 'first mover'. Aristotle said in his book physics, "Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. but this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some first mover." Aristole went on to reason that this first cause must be eternal and immaterial and perfect or else it would be subject to change.

Bottom line, even if there was a 'prime mover', that is still not evidence for god. With quantum mechanics and the like, it is possible that a 'prime mover' could be purely scientific.

But quantum mechanics still rely upon a cause and effect mechanism. Even quantum events have their causes. No matter how one views Hisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty (epistemologically or deterministically) one still finds need for a 'prime mover'.

orthodox

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Seriously, do you have any reason to believe that the universe existed before the BB? If it did not there is no case for a natural cause for the universe.

See, Orthodox, this is where you and I have some problems--our interpretation of the evidence. Your conclusion can only logically follow if one has already presupposed the existence of non-natural things. Without presupposing the existence of supernatural things, do you have any reason to believe that anything existed before the BB? If nothing existed before the BB, there is no case for ANY cause for the universe--either the universe is eternal and therefore uncaused, or its cause is currently unknown.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Aristole went on to reason that this first cause must be eternal and immaterial and perfect or else it would be subject to change.

Be careful when you say Aristotle believed in god...that gives the impression that Aristotle believed in a personal god, but a first cause that is eternal and immaterial and perfect is a long way away from a personal god.

But quantum mechanics still rely upon a cause and effect mechanism. Even quantum events have their causes. No matter how one views Hisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty (epistemologically or deterministically) one still finds need for a 'prime mover'.

I visited my physics professor during office hours to ask him this specific question. He told me that most physicists believe that events at the quantum level are literally random (it's not just because we perceive them that way). Albert Einstein may have said "God does not play dice," but Stephen Hawking said that not only does god play dice, he throws the die where we can't see them.

(edit) I'd like to add that, if events on the quantum level are indeed random, that would make them, for all intents and purposes, the prime mover of the cosmos.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sorry for posting three posts in a row, but...

1. The second Law of thermodynamics.
2. The expanding universe.
3. The impossibility of an infinite series of anything.
4. General Relativity

I need some clarification here. How do any of these prohibit an uncaused big bang universe?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Once again I apologize.

Ok then.... Why don't you enlighten me with all that wisdom that you, but not countless scientists qualified in this field, have found.

Why do you refer to so many physicists and astronomers as if they, too, hold your belief in a personal god? Furthermore, why do you imply on a regular basis that the few eminent physicists and astronomers who do beleive in a personal god ever claim that their belief is scientific? According to all the surveys I have seen, the vast majority of eminent scientists in this field do not believe in a personal god.

 

[Pah]

For a number of reasons science prohibits an eternal universe.
1. The second Law of thermodynamics.
2. The expanding universe.
3. The impossibility of an infinite series of anything.
4. General Relativity

I'll not go into all of the items listed but I will address the third. On it's face #3, "The impossibility of an infinite series of anything", is wrong to begin with and can not be used to claim anything about the characteristics of the universe.

Numbers are infinite. The series (or set) of cardinal numbers, the series of odd numbers, the series of prime numbers are all infinite, for example(there are infinite others). In fact, infinities are infinite - Aleph null being the first cardinal number in the mathmatical set of infinities.

Such is the beauty and awe of mathmatics.

Bob

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Dang it! I was hoping for that most uncommon fifth consecutive post. You just don't see that as often as you'd like. There for a moment, I thought you might start debating against yourself.

TVOR

 

[croak]

The Fall of Atheism
http://www.harunyahya.com/70the_fall_of_atheism_sci34.php

Why the universe cannot have started without a Creator. Very interesting article, too long to post, though.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Rearing - I went to the site that you hyperlinked, and read the entire page. My first comment is that I wish I had that 20 minutes of my life back. My second comment is that the site is the same old perversion of what science is and how it works. In his defense, the author (Harun Yahya), didn't spare the misrepresentation of what many scientists and philosophers have actually said.

Truly a waste of time.

Thanks (sort of),
TVOR

PS - the design of the web site was nice. (I'm working on improving my ability to find the good in all things.)

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I thought I'd put a couple of nuggets from your linked site in here for others to consider - perhaps it will save them from wasting their time:

From the site hyperlinked in Rearing Arabian's post above:

In contrast with the theist and peaceful American Revolution, the French Revolution was atheist, neo-pagan and extremely violent.

Darwin: His theory is now refuted by a great deal of scientific evidence.

An entire section titled: The Natural Sciences: The Collapse of Darwinism and
The Triumph of Intelligent Design

Another section titled: Quantum Physics and the Discovery of the Divine Wisdom

Come to think of it, the site does have some redeeming value, from the standpoint of being fairly laughable.

TVOR

PS - did I mention that the website was nicely designed?