Does science prove the existence of god?

[croak]

I didn't write the article, so "In contrast with the theist and peaceful American Revolution, the French Revolution was atheist, neo-pagan and extremely violent. ," I have 100% no idea if it is true. We didn't study it yet.

The four physical forces in the universe (gravitational force, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetic force) are all at the necessary levels for an ordered universe to emerge and for life to exist. Even the tiniest variations in these forces (for example, one in 1039, or one in 1028; that is—crudely calculated—one in a billion billion billion billion), the universe would either be composed only of radiation or of no other element besides hydrogen.

Very likely.

An even more interesting fact is that when the nuclei and electrons are further examined, it has been realized that these are made up of much smaller particles called "quarks," and that these quarks are not particles in the physical sense, but simply energy. This discovery has broken the classical distinction between matter and energy. It now appears that in the material universe, only energy exists. What we call matter is just "frozen energy."

Any materialists out there? I think this refers to you. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The phenomenon known as the Cambrian Explosion is especially interesting. In this early geological period, nearly all of the phyla (major groups with significantly different body plans) of the animal kingdom suddenly appeared. This sudden emergence of many different categories of living things with totally different body structures and extremely complex organs and systems, including mollusks, arthropods, echinoderms and (as recently discovered) even vertebrates, is a major blow to Darwinism. For, as evolutionists also agree, the sudden appearance of a taxon implies supernatural design and this means creation.

Mother Nature decided to put all the living things in a nice bowl called Earth, heated it up with evolution, and it popped out with new living things. Whoever believes in what I said, please ask yourself: "Am I hungry for popcorn?"

The Origin of Life: Darwin spoke about a common ancestor but he never mentioned how this first common ancestor came to be. His only conjecture was that the first cell could have formed as a result of random chemical reactions “in some small warm little pond”.22 But evolutionary biochemists who undertook to close this hole in Darwinism met with frustration. All observations and experiments showed that it was, in a word, impossible for a living cell to arise within inanimate matter by random chemical reactions. Even the English atheist Nobel Prize-winner Fred Hoyle expressed that such a scenario "is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

I don't know why Atheists think it more probable for a thinking, breathing thing to form from nothing, when a Boeing 747 can't form by itself, even if everything needed to make it was present.

 

[croak]

Why did I make that bold? Nevermind.

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.

You took 20 minutes?! You know, usually I scan a page, and if it looks convincing, I read it. You should try that.

P.S. That doesn't mean I don't look at Atheist websites, even though they aren't convincing.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

All observations and experiments showed that it was, in a word, impossible for a living cell to arise within inanimate matter by random chemical reactions.

That's like saying "it's impossible for a complete chain of electrons to form a pathway from the clouds to the ground by random chemical reactions". That statement is very true, and might mean something if meteorologists actually made claims otherwise. However, like evolution, lightning doesn't occur by "random chemical reactions" but according to the predictable rules and laws of nature. Electrons don't just happen to end up forming a bolt of lightning by pure chance....there are natural forces at work that make this phenomenon a much more likely occurrance than in some otherwise "random chemical reaction". The same is true with evolution.

 

[Ceridwen018]

The four physical forces in the universe (gravitational force, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetic force) are all at the necessary levels for an ordered universe to emerge and for life to exist. Even the tiniest variations in these forces (for example, one in 1039, or one in 1028; that is—crudely calculated—one in a billion billion billion billion), the universe would either be composed only of radiation or of no other element besides hydrogen.

If all of that is true, which I honestly can't be sure of unless I look it up, it still isn't a case for god. Just because something is unlikely, doesn't mean that god had to do it. It would have been more unlikely for the universe NOT to have been created. I mean, by the laws of probability, it was bound to happen at one point or another.

An even more interesting fact is that when the nuclei and electrons are further examined, it has been realized that these are made up of much smaller particles called "quarks," and that these quarks are not particles in the physical sense, but simply energy. This discovery has broken the classical distinction between matter and energy. It now appears that in the material universe, only energy exists. What we call matter is just "frozen energy."

Any materialists out there? I think this refers to you. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This guy seems to know a heck of a lot more about quarks than anyone else. Quarks are a very new discovery, and we really don't know much of anything about them. It's pretty ridiculous that he's pinning all of this on quarks, because no one can know that.

The phenomenon known as the Cambrian Explosion is especially interesting. In this early geological period, nearly all of the phyla (major groups with significantly different body plans) of the animal kingdom suddenly appeared. This sudden emergence of many different categories of living things with totally different body structures and extremely complex organs and systems, including mollusks, arthropods, echinoderms and (as recently discovered) even vertebrates, is a major blow to Darwinism. For, as evolutionists also agree, the sudden appearance of a taxon implies supernatural design and this means creation.

Not quite. Allow me to fill you in on the theories behind the Cambrian Explosion. For starters, many new ecological differences emerged. Predator/prey relationships formed for the first time, which of course, is one of the main causes for adaptation/evolution, even in modern times. Speaking geologically, scientists have discerned that the levels of atmospheric oxygen finally reached a high enough concentration to support the metabolisms of more diverse wildlife. Finally, genetics has a huge part to play here. The diversity in body form that we observe in most species is due to the Hox gene, which is present in developing embryos. It is quite easy to see how the diversification of animals could be directly associated with the evolution of the Hox complex.

Another thing--the so called "Cambrian Explosion" within itself was not as simple as people like to make it sound. It was actually three separate explosions, one within each of the three branches of bilateral animals.

I don't know why Atheists think it more probable for a thinking, breathing thing to form from nothing, when a Boeing 747 can't form by itself, even if everything needed to make it was present.

2nd cousin to the infamous 'watch theory.' It's already been refuted a million times on these forums--go look for one of them.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You took 20 minutes?! You know, usually I scan a page, and if it looks convincing, I read it. You should try that.

I think this explains a large part of the problem - if I am asked to read something as part of a debate, I actually read it, and try to digest it before responding to it, or dismissing it. When you scan an article, or worse yet, don't even read it at all, you put yourself at risk of making ignorant comments about what is being debated. I don't mean this just for you, personally, Rearing - it is intended for everyone (myself included).
The practice of "scanning" instead of reading and digesting, is, in my mind, the biggest fault of those that argue that science proves any religious belief, or that evolution isn't "good" science.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[painted wolf]

is it me or is jumping information, cherry picking, or just simple skimming the biggest problem when it comes to any debate on science in general? It makes it difficult, or at least frustrating to discuss science with the scientifically illiterate.

wa:do

 

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

Sorry it took me a while to reply. A challenging post…

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.

My reason for believing that the universe was caused by a supernatural thing goes as follows.

Note: I realise that some of my claims are controversial – particularly those dealing with infinity and the reasons for a beginning – but bear with me as I will demonstrate the soundness of my propositions later in this post.

Let us define everything that has its’ existence entirely contained in this universe as natural, and anything that exists apart from, or not uniquely within, the universe as supernatural.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause independent of itself.

1.1Something cannot cause itself to exist.

1.2The Principle of Causality dictates that every effect must have a cause.

2. The universe has a beginning.

2.1For reason of various laws and impossibilities.

2.11 The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
2.12 General Relativity (More specifically the Singularity Theorems of Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking and George Ellis).
2.13 The Impossibility of an infinite series of events.

2.2 This is evidenced by observable phenomena

2.21 The expanding universe.
2.22 The CoBE findings.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

4. Since the universe has a cause the causer must be supernatural.
4.1 Everything that is natural had its’ beginning with the universe which leaves only the supernatural able to cause the universe by virtue of point 1.1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will briefly demonstrate the soundness of the above points.

1.1 Something cannot cause itself to exist because it would have had to exist before it caused itself to. This makes the idea of causa sui self-contradictory because it presupposes that which is yet to exist.

1.2 A beginning is necessarily the effect of some pre-existent catalyst.

2.11 The SloT says that the amount of useable energy in a closed system is decreasing. The supply of useable energy in the universe is running out. Since anything that is ‘running out’ must be in finite supply, the universe must by necessity have started with a finite quantity of useable energy. If the universe has a finite quantity of useable energy then it cannot be eternal because it would have finally run out of supply an eternity ago (this relates to the impossibility of an infinite series of anything).

2.12 Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking and George Ellis proved that if General Relativity holds true then the universe must have had a space-time singularity at the Big Bang.

2.13 Infinity quite simply refuses to fit into our temporal universe. For example an infinite series of events is by definition without end. Your reading this post is an event. But, if there really were an infinite series of events then there would be an infinite number of them before the one in which you read this post. The problem being that if there was an infinite number of events before this one then we would never have reached this one because it is impossible to traverse an infinity.

2.21 As Edwin Hubble first discovered by means of the red-shift in distant galaxies, the universe is expanding outwards. Recent discoveries have suggested that this expansion is no longer being slowed by gravity but is now accelerating due to "dark energy". This is powerful evidence for the space-time singularity at the Big Bang.

2.22 The Cosmic Background Explorer discovered ‘wrinkles’ in the cosmic microwave background echo which firmly establish the Big Bang cosmological model.

4.1 This warrants no further explanation. If the above points are accepted it is self-evident.

If you believe there to be a problem with the points I have outlined above please show me how.

a first cause that is eternal and immaterial and perfect is a long way away from a personal god.

True, but it is impossible to believe in a personal theistic god without first believing in something supernatural. I think that one has to look at more than just cosmology to ‘get the full picture’, or rather, a more full picture, of what this supernatural thing is. This is not to say that cosmology doesn’t at least begin to open up some profound metaphysical questions.

cont. below

 

[Orthodox]

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.

This was a very challenging statement to respond to! Still, I have re-visited the area in question and come to a conclusion that many others have also come to.

Firstly, you may be interested to know that Hawking said "not only does God play dice, he also sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen" in reference to the Black Hole Information Paradox. He recently claimed to have solved this paradox and concluded that these "dice" are, at least theoretically, not ultimately invisible.

Quantum Mechanics can be interpreted in a number of different and opposing ways. There is not yet any data to indicate how exactly quantum events can be described. This is an area where physics digresses into metaphysics.

I will quickly outline the main conflicting views.

1. Ontological Indeterminism: Quantum events truly are random. (Heisenberg).
2. Ontological Determinism: The causes of quantum events are unknowable which makes the events appear random from our point of view. (Einstein, Bohm).
3. Many Worlds: The idea that every quantum possibility is realised in its’ own parallel universe. This is the basis for the idea of a "multi-verse". (Everett).
4. Superstate collapse: The belief that the quantum exists in every possible state until this "superstate" is ‘collapsed’ by an observer looking at it. (Neumann, Wigner, Penrose).

Obviously, in Ontological Determinism and Superstate Collapse quantum events have natural causes. The cause of ODevents being what Einstein and Bohm called "hidden variables". These variables would behave in a classical way. The cause of SC events is being the observation of the observer.

The Many Worlds proposal is at least as metaphysical as the claim for a creator God. Ironically, although it is propagated as a good diffuser of the cosmological argument for God (which supposably allows room for only one universe), the Many Worlds proposal is actually strikingly similar to the early Christian assertion that God, being infinitely good, would desire as much good as possible and therefore have an infinite number of ‘good’ universes. Saint Augustine said that there might be "worlds without end".

Finally, Ontological Indeterminism. Am I right in believing that this is where your allegiances lie? Anyway, while this type of event has no direct catalyst to a certain extent it is still determined. A particle obeying the rules of OI is not purely random. It is allowed to be in any state within a well-defined perimeter. A particle cannot do as it likes (forgive my anthropomorphism). It cannot become as large as the sun, nor can it make itself not exist. An OI particle is pre-determined to be indeterminate in a specific way. So, are OI quantum events uncaused? I must concede that from a certain point of view they are, however, in another way they are not (It sounds like my argument is behaving like a quantum of light!). If a particle behaves indeterminately it is only because the laws which govern the universe have caused it to do so. The OI particle has no choice in whether it will behave classically or not, it is forced to be so.

(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

Not necessarily. If the cosmological models currently considered most likely to account for the universe are correct then quantum events are ultimately disqualified from ‘causing’ the universe. The space-time singularity, which the Big Bang models all propose, crushes space, time and matter into a singularity of infinite curvature. This effectively means that there is no space, matter or time. How can a quantum event occur without space to mover in, matter to work with, or time to work in. A change in ‘state’ presupposes the existence of something to change (matter), something to change in (space) and something to change according to (time).

In order to suggest that quantum events are the prime mover one has to abandon any idea of a space-time singularity. This becomes hazardous because of the points outlined above.

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

I said they prohibit an eternal universe. An uncaused Big Bang idea is inherently flawed for reasons outlined above.

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.

I don’t refer to them as though they believe in a personal God. I refer to them on their belief that there is a ‘supernatural agency’ at work behind the origin of the universe. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is absurd to believe in something like the Trinity or the Atonement purely for the reason that the universe has something supernatural involved in its’ origin.

The way I see it, a supernatural friendly cosmology is essential to the belief in supernatural teleology, which in turn is essential the belief in objective morality and purpose, which is essential to a belief in a personal God. There is little use in me saying that morality means there is a God if you have not the slightest reason to believe that such a being is even possible, there is a staircase to climb in order to have reason for a belief in a personal God, cosmology is the first step.

Orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

Pah,

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.

I definitely should have thought more about my original statement! I intended that statement to mean that an infinite series of events is impossible. I certainly don’t think that an infinite number is impossible – calculus, which I use often, actually demands their existence. Sorry about the confusion and thanks for bringing it to my attention.

orthodox

 

[The Voice of Reason]

1.2The Principle of Causality dictates that every effect must have a cause.

Well, this is as far as I got. I'll go back and finish reading after I put this little nugget up for consideration. I have some problems with a couple of things prior to this, but this statement in particular is incorrect.
Causality does NOT dictate that every effect must have a cause. Causality merely addresses the relationship between a given cause and the effect, and the increasing probabilities that arise over time, as the specified cause is followed by the observed effect.
Causality makes absolutely no claim that every effect must have a cause. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. No such thing.

Thanks,
TVOR

PS - back to your post, to finish reading and digesting it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you believe there to be a problem with the points I have outlined above please show me how.

Cantor infinities. The Hawking "no boundary" hypothesis.

 

[Pah]

Pah,

I definitely should have thought more about my original statement! I intended that statement to mean that an infinite series of events is impossible. I certainly don’t think that an infinite number is impossible – calculus, which I use often, actually demands their existence. Sorry about the confusion and thanks for bringing it to my attention.

orthodox

If the events are numbered, and of course they are, then there can be an infinite number of events. Anything with a corresponance to cardinal numbers can be infinite.

Bob

 

[croak]

True, but some things cannot be infinite. Example: the alphabet. It goes from a to z. Nothing more, nothing less. You cannot keep adding letters: unlike numbers, no one would be able to use it as you keep adding new letters, and thus, new words may be formed. So, it is finite. Once you get to z, it's done.

I can't think of anything else at the moment, as it's quite late.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Let us define everything that has its’ existence entirely contained in this universe as natural, and anything that exists apart from, or not uniquely within, the universe as supernatural.

I would like to reply to just about everything in your last post...however, I think it's important that we address our conflict of definitions first.

www.dictionary.com defines supernatural as:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.

The word supernatural carries a lot of baggage relating to miracles, the divine, and deities. However, when we are talking about what caused the BB, science does not know how it happened--sure, philosophically it could have been caused by a miracle, or it could have a non-miraculous cause; it could have been caused by an as-yet-scientifically-undiscovered deity, or it could have been caused by an as-yet-undiscovered law or principle.

The methodology by which science investigates the world is naturalism--science always assumes natural causes as responsible for all observed phenomena. Why? Because using the word 'supernatural' biases our language towards miraculous, deity-driven, unpredictable, or unpatterned possibilities over non-miraculous, predictable, patterned possibilites. This bias is unscientific--there is simply no scientific test by which we can distinguish between undiscovered or unknowable natural causes and supernatural causes.

However, if we define 'natural' as everything that interacts with the observable/detectable world, we avoid this problem.

So supposing the BB was caused by something, that something would be 'natural' by this definition. The nature of that 'something', of course, could be unknown--or even unknowable--to us. The 'something' could be a deity or a council of deities; those deities might behave according to laws and patterns, or they might be completely unpredictable and their acts miraculous; finally, the BB could have been caused by some mindless law(s) or rule(s). I would note that for the methodological reasons stated earlier, the latter is the preferred assumption of science.

Summary: I would define whatever caused the BB as natural because it interacted with the natural world and therefore is part (perhaps the first part, perhaps just another part in a long chain) of the observable system of things. Furthermore, sans omniscience, scientists have no way of knowing that this hypothetical 'something' does not behave according to laws and patterns as do the rest of the observed phenomena revealed to us by science.

 

[Orthodox]

TVOR,

Causality does NOT dictate that every effect must have a cause. Causality merely addresses the relationship between a given cause and the effect, and the increasing probabilities that arise over time, as the specified cause is followed by the observed effect.
Causality makes absolutely no claim that every effect must have a cause. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. No such thing.

Actually, it does. The principle of causality can be stated in a few different ways.
1. Every effect has a cause.
2. Everything that comes to be has a causer independent of itself.
3. Every contingent thing is caused by another thing.

All of these statments either are, or can be reduced to the, analytic. They are self-evident. David Hume stated, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition that something could arise without a cause". Something that does not exist has no power to cause something to exist. "From nothing nating comes; nothiong ever could."

This is The Princple of Causality. You are perhaps confusing causality with the Principle of Causality.

orthodox

 

[Pah]

True, but some things cannot be infinite. Example: the alphabet. It goes from a to z. Nothing more, nothing less. You cannot keep adding letters: unlike numbers, no one would be able to use it as you keep adding new letters, and thus, new words may be formed. So, it is finite. Once you get to z, it's done.

I can't think of anything else at the moment, as it's quite late.

I agree that "a to z" is a finite set but not that events are finite.

Bob

 

[Orthodox]

Duet,

Cantor infinities.

A cantor infinity is a mathematical infinity not an actual infinity. You could not write down an infinite number could you? While we can work with infinite numbers they have no practical applicaton in our universe. Likewise, an infinite series of events is impossible to traverse. If the universe is infinitely old then there would be an infinitley long series of events before this one. But, If there were an infinite series of events before this one we would never have reached it. Hence, an infinite series of events is impossible.

The Hawking "no boundary" hypothesis.

Hawking's search is for a space-time that is finite but without edge or 'boundary' (like the surface of a sphere). In order to prove this he must find a way to eliminate the necessity of a space-time singularity at the beginning of the universe (again, this time scale is Friedmann's). Hawking attempts to use the mathematical contruct of a fourth spatial dimmension conprised of 'imaginary numbers' to describe gravity using path integrals. This fourth spatial dimmension is converted into our fourth dimmension, time, when the path integral is complete. This gives rise to the term 'imaginary time'.

Hawking proposes that one can create a path integral, which is usually a 'sum of all histories' from an initial three dimmensional geometry (3 spatial dimmensions) 'boundary' to a final three dimmensionsal geometry, without the initial boundary. The problem for Hawking is that currently our universe is considered to be 'open' (flat) and the instantons (specific space-time geometries from the path integral that match to our own 'open' universe) that he has proposed as the model by which the universe began all originate in a singularity when the fourth spatial dimmension (imaginary time) is converted into real time.

What does this mean in english? It means that in imaginary time there is no beginning to the universe, but in real time there is. Hawking admits as much. Simply put, in the imaginary universe Hawking finds no need for God, however, in the real universe he does.

The 'no boundary' proposal has very little going for it other than its' comforting 'no beginning' aspect.

Sorry if you already knew this. I have no idea how much you know about astrophysics and cosmology. Did you understand the 'no boundary' proposal before? More importantly, if you didn't understand it before, do you understand it now?

orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

Pah,

If the events are numbered, and of course they are, then there can be an infinite number of events. Anything with a corresponance to cardinal numbers can be infinite.

Not in reality. An infinite series of events is impossible because one cannot traverse an infinity and if today is an event then there needs to have been an infinite number of events before it, in which case an infinity must have been traversed to get to today. This is impossible.

orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

I would define whatever caused the BB as natural because it interacted with the natural world and therefore is part (perhaps the first part, perhaps just another part in a long chain) of the observable system of things. Furthermore, sans omniscience, scientists have no way of knowing that this hypothetical 'something' does not behave according to laws and patterns as do the rest of the observed phenomena revealed to us by science.

It seems like all we are debating here is semantics. I use the word supernatural to imply a something that did not have its' beginning with the universe as we know it. This supernatural thing cannot have only existed and functioned in space, time and matter. None of these existed at the Big Bang so any natural catalyst for the it must have been able to function in the abscence of matter, space and time. It is venishingly mprobable that any rule or principle could do this. For this reason many scientists who want to avoid the obvious supernatural implications of the BB are searching desperately for any chance to discard the space-time singularity at the beginning of the universe.

orthodox

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It is venishingly mprobable that any rule or principle could do this.

Do you mean to say "it is vanishingly improbable that any known rule or principle could do this", or are you omniscient?