Science and God

[shunyadragon]

Why? How can you assume a 'Maker!' for very low tech machines, yet posit, 'random accident!', for very complex, highly technical biological machines?

I do not posit 'random accident' for anything else but the San Diego Freeway. As far as the objective verifiable evidence the only thing random is the occurence of individual events. The outcome of everything in nature is determined by Natural Laws.

We can't even come close to 'creating' a single celled organism, with all of our technology, and do not have a clue about abstracts like the soul or spiritual dimensions.. ..yet this very limited understanding and ability in a universe that transcends all our comprehension compels a conclusion of 'no God!'?

Our 'very limited understanding and ability in a universe that transcends all our complete comprehension compels, that by the evidence we do not know whether God exists or not. We believe God exists by faith, and not physical evidence. Anything else is 'arguing from ignorance' based on an agenda.

The plausibility of there being 'something' to the internal evidence is more likely than the imagination of random naturalism..

But, everyone gotta believe something..

The processes of Nature are not random they are determined by the Laws of Nature.

 

[viole]

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already know that alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit into their narrative.

Click on the link below

I would say that the evidence of a God fine tuning the Universe is offset by the counter evidence of a perfect creator who creates beings who think that to be a compelling argument.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MonkeyFire]

There is one problem with the problem of evil, being that invincibility fights as a nihilistic demon, meaning the omnipotemt met his match and is still benevolent.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually i find your post misleading 'First, randomness has no causal role in the outcome of whether planets including ours result in supporting life.' Is totally wrong even a simple 3 body problem leads to chaos and you claim highly complex planetary formation is not chaotic!?

When you claim 'lead to chaos' this needs explanation. As worded it is simply an assertion..How do you define chaotic?

The outcome of one event in a three-body problem may be random, but the outcome is still determined by the Laws of NAture, as expressed in physics and math as described in the article below.

From: This Is the Only Way to Solve the Three-Body Problem

THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THE THREE-BODY PROBLEM

This artist's concept illustrates Kepler-47, the first transiting circumbinary system.
NASA/JPL-CALTECH/T. PYLE
IF YOU WANT to understand all the best physics jokes (yes, these do exist), you should probably know about the spherical cow and the three-body problem.


Two-Body Problem
Before looking at the three-body problem, let's start of with something simpler—the two-body problem. Suppose I have two objects (two stars would work) that are both moving and both interacting with each other.

The goal is to find an expression for the position of both objects (that are interacting gravitationally) for all future times. I'm not going to go through a full derivation, but solving the two-body problem isn't impossible. Here's what you do.

• In order to keep track of both stars, you would need six coordinates. There are three coordinates for the location of each star (assuming we don't care about their rotational orientation).
• We can make this a three-coordinate problem by considering the motion relative to the center of mass of the two-star system. This means the problem can be reduced to two problems. There is the motion of the center of mass (which isn't too interesting) and then a reduced mass (a combination of the two stars) orbiting the center of mass.
• In the reduced mass system, there is only the gravitational force pulling towards the center of mass. There is no torque on the reduced mass. This means that the angular momentum vector is constant. So, we can pick a plane of motion to coincide with the x-y plane. This means that we only need two coordinates to describe this system (we are getting somewhere).
• When you get to the actual physics (in Lagrangian mechanics) you can create a potential due to the angular motion (we can call this the centrifugal potential). This means that you will have a gravitational plus centrifugal potential and turn it into a 1-D problem (only motion in the r direction).

Yes, I skipped all the details—but the point is that you can actually solve this problem. Here is a plot for a planet orbiting a star showing the total effective potential in one dimension.


With this effective potential in 1-D, it's just like a ball on a hill. You can see that there is a small dip in this potential—that is where you could put an object and it would be in a stable circular orbit. You can also see how much energy you would need to add to get it to escape or do whatever you like.

This is the two-body problem. It's solvable.

Three-Body Problem
Why do we even care about the three-body problem? What if you want to model the motion of the moon? You could say that the moon orbits the Earth and that it's a two-body problem, but this is clearly not completely true. Instead, the moon's motion is governed both by its gravitational interaction with the Sun and Earth. Moon plus Earth plus Sun equals three bodies, the three-body problem.


But let me at a different three-body problem. Suppose there are two stars orbiting each other (a binary star system) and a planet. What would the motion of the planet be like? Let's start with a diagram (not to scale).

The reality is the formation of galaxies, stars and planets is determined by the Laws of Nature, and the variation between galaxies, stars and the resulting planets have causal predicable properties, which beyond the randomness of individual events are fractal in their variation of the result. Chaos Theory describes the fractal nature of the outcomes of any series of cause and effect relationships. The result is constrained by the Laws of Nature.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say that the evidence of a God fine tuning the Universe is offset by the counter evidence of a perfect creator who creates beings who think that to be a compelling argument.

Ciao

- viole

The problem with the fine-tuning argument is that it remains unknown what the possible range of constants, and laws of nature are if there is more than one universe. The possible range may be very small, and what Einstein said, 'God does not play dice.'

As our knowledge of the Quantum World increases it may be found that determinism holds in the Quantum World. At present it remains an unsolved problem.

 

[Darkforbid]

When you claim 'lead to chaos' this needs explanation. As worded it is simply an assertion..How do you define chaotic?

The outcome of one event in a three-body problem may be random, but the outcome is still determined by the Laws of NAture, as expressed in physics and math as described in the article below.

From: This Is the Only Way to Solve the Three-Body Problem

THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THE THREE-BODY PROBLEM

This artist's concept illustrates Kepler-47, the first transiting circumbinary system.
NASA/JPL-CALTECH/T. PYLE
IF YOU WANT to understand all the best physics jokes (yes, these do exist), you should probably know about the spherical cow and the three-body problem.


Two-Body Problem
Before looking at the three-body problem, let's start of with something simpler—the two-body problem. Suppose I have two objects (two stars would work) that are both moving and both interacting with each other.

The goal is to find an expression for the position of both objects (that are interacting gravitationally) for all future times. I'm not going to go through a full derivation, but solving the two-body problem isn't impossible. Here's what you do.

• In order to keep track of both stars, you would need six coordinates. There are three coordinates for the location of each star (assuming we don't care about their rotational orientation).
• We can make this a three-coordinate problem by considering the motion relative to the center of mass of the two-star system. This means the problem can be reduced to two problems. There is the motion of the center of mass (which isn't too interesting) and then a reduced mass (a combination of the two stars) orbiting the center of mass.
• In the reduced mass system, there is only the gravitational force pulling towards the center of mass. There is no torque on the reduced mass. This means that the angular momentum vector is constant. So, we can pick a plane of motion to coincide with the x-y plane. This means that we only need two coordinates to describe this system (we are getting somewhere).
• When you get to the actual physics (in Lagrangian mechanics) you can create a potential due to the angular motion (we can call this the centrifugal potential). This means that you will have a gravitational plus centrifugal potential and turn it into a 1-D problem (only motion in the r direction).

Yes, I skipped all the details—but the point is that you can actually solve this problem. Here is a plot for a planet orbiting a star showing the total effective potential in one dimension.


With this effective potential in 1-D, it's just like a ball on a hill. You can see that there is a small dip in this potential—that is where you could put an object and it would be in a stable circular orbit. You can also see how much energy you would need to add to get it to escape or do whatever you like.

This is the two-body problem. It's solvable.

Three-Body Problem
Why do we even care about the three-body problem? What if you want to model the motion of the moon? You could say that the moon orbits the Earth and that it's a two-body problem, but this is clearly not completely true. Instead, the moon's motion is governed both by its gravitational interaction with the Sun and Earth. Moon plus Earth plus Sun equals three bodies, the three-body problem.


But let me at a different three-body problem. Suppose there are two stars orbiting each other (a binary star system) and a planet. What would the motion of the planet be like? Let's start with a diagram (not to scale).

The reality is the formation of galaxies, stars and planets is determined by the Laws of Nature, and the variation between galaxies, stars and the resulting planets have causal predicable properties, which beyond the randomness of individual events are fractal in their variation of the result. Chaos Theory describes the fractal nature of the outcomes of any series of cause and effect relationships. The result is constrained by the Laws of Nature.

Where did I say the laws of nature do not apply:

Three-body problem - Wikipedia


There is no general analytical solution to the three-body problem given by simple algebraic expressions and integrals. Moreover, the motion of three bodies is generally non-repeating, except in special cases.

 

[Darkforbid]

The problem with the fine-tuning argument is that it remains unknown what the possible range of constants, and laws of nature are if there is more than one universe. The possible range may be very small, and what Einstein said, 'God does not play dice.'

As our knowledge of the Quantum World increases it may be found that determinism holds in the Quantum World. At present it remains an unsolved problem.

If there is more than one universe? Even if there is it has no detectable effect on this one

 

[viole]

The problem with the fine-tuning argument is that it remains unknown what the possible range of constants, and laws of nature are if there is more than one universe. The possible range may be very small, and what Einstein said, 'God does not play dice.'

As our knowledge of the Quantum World increases it may be found that determinism holds in the Quantum World. At present it remains an unsolved problem.

Well, first of all it is question begging because it assumes in its premises that life sort of deserve an explanation. We could use any other thing that would not exist if the the constants were different. Black holes for instance. Or mount Everest.

Second, they usually criticize science for making statements without experiments, and then assume to know what universes with different constants look like. For what we know, some of them might host things that are vastly more awesome than the life we observe here.

Third, it assumes that naturalism entails that universes are one shot things that pop out into existence by taking their constants from some cosmic roulette.

Fourth, even if we bite the bullet on the above mentioned assumption, there are several naturalistic alternatives that explain them, with currently the same evidence, at worst, of Apollo having burped the universe into existence.

So, its pretense to provide evidence of a supernatural world fails on so many fronts that it is almost an embarrassment to still use it today.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

If there is more than one universe? Even if there is it has no detectable effect on this one

Actually there may be evidence for the effect of another universe on ours . . .

I do not believe we have good evidence yet, but this indicates a possibility. I at present always say IF concerning the multiverse, because of the limited evidence, . . . I believe other universes exist. Uniqueness is a contradiction in science.

From: Mystery bright spots could be first glimpse of another universe

Mystery bright spots could be first glimpse of another universe

Light given off by hydrogen shortly after the big bang has left some unexplained bright patches in space. Are they evidence of bumping into another universe?

SPACE 28 October 2015

Some bubbles are boring
Rudi Sebastian/Plainpicture

By Joshua Sokol

THE curtain at the edge of the universe may be rippling, hinting that there’s more backstage. Data from the European Space Agency’s Planck telescope could be giving us our first glimpse of another universe, with different physics, bumping up against our own.

That’s the tentative conclusion of an analysis by Ranga-Ram Chary, a researcher at Planck’s US data centre in California. Armed with Planck’s painstaking map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) – light lingering from the hot, soupy state of the early universe – Chary revealed an eerie glow that could be due to matter from a neighbouring universe leaking into ours.

This sort of collision should be possible, according to modern cosmological theories that suggest the universe we see is just one bubble among many. Such a multiverse may be a consequence of cosmic inflation, the widely accepted idea that the early universe expanded exponentially in the slimmest fraction of a second after the big bang.

Once it starts, inflation never quite stops, so a multitude of universes becomes nearly inevitable. “I would say most versions of inflation in fact lead to eternal inflation, producing a number of pocket universes,” says Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an architect of the theory.

Energy hidden in empty space drives inflation, and the amount that’s around could vary from place to place, so some regions would eventually settle down and stop expanding at such a manic pace. But the spots where inflation is going gangbusters would spawn inflating universes. And even areas within these new bubbles could balloon into pocket universes themselves.

“If two bubbles started out close enough that they touched, they could leave an imprint on each other”

Like compositions on the same theme, each universe produced this way would be likely to have its own spin on physics. The matter in some bubbles – the boring ones – would fly apart within 10-40 seconds of their creation. Others would be full of particles and rules similar to ours, or even exactly like ours. In the multiverse of eternal inflation, everything that can happen has happened – and will probably happen again.

That notion could explain why the physical constants of our universe seem to be so exquisitely tuned to allow for galaxies, stars, planets and life (see “Just right for life?“).

Sadly, if they do exist, other bubbles are nigh on impossible to learn about. With the space between them and us always expanding, light is too slow to carry any information between different regions. “They could never even know about each other’s existence,” says Matthew Johnson of York University in Toronto, Canada. “It sounds like a fun idea but it seems like there’s no way to test it.”

Read more: Mystery bright spots could be first glimpse of another universe

 

[shunyadragon]

If there is more than one universe? Even if there is it has no detectable effect on this one

You emphasized the problem which has an explanation, in response to my post that the concept of randomness only applies to individual events, and Laws of Nature determine the outcome.

You have not answered the following: When you claim 'lead to chaos' this needs explanation. As worded it is simply an assertion..How do you define chaotic?

As cited; the 'Three-Body Problem has been resolved. Math and Physics work.

 

[Darkforbid]

Actually there may be evidence for the effect of another universe on ours . . .

I do not believe we have good evidence yet, but this indicates a possibility.

From: Mystery bright spots could be first glimpse of another universe

Mystery bright spots could be first glimpse of another universe

Light given off by hydrogen shortly after the big bang has left some unexplained bright patches in space. Are they evidence of bumping into another universe?

SPACE 28 October 2015

Some bubbles are boring
Rudi Sebastian/Plainpicture

By Joshua Sokol

THE curtain at the edge of the universe may be rippling, hinting that there’s more backstage. Data from the European Space Agency’s Planck telescope could be giving us our first glimpse of another universe, with different physics, bumping up against our own.

That’s the tentative conclusion of an analysis by Ranga-Ram Chary, a researcher at Planck’s US data centre in California. Armed with Planck’s painstaking map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) – light lingering from the hot, soupy state of the early universe – Chary revealed an eerie glow that could be due to matter from a neighbouring universe leaking into ours.

This sort of collision should be possible, according to modern cosmological theories that suggest the universe we see is just one bubble among many. Such a multiverse may be a consequence of cosmic inflation, the widely accepted idea that the early universe expanded exponentially in the slimmest fraction of a second after the big bang.

Once it starts, inflation never quite stops, so a multitude of universes becomes nearly inevitable. “I would say most versions of inflation in fact lead to eternal inflation, producing a number of pocket universes,” says Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an architect of the theory.

Energy hidden in empty space drives inflation, and the amount that’s around could vary from place to place, so some regions would eventually settle down and stop expanding at such a manic pace. But the spots where inflation is going gangbusters would spawn inflating universes. And even areas within these new bubbles could balloon into pocket universes themselves.

“If two bubbles started out close enough that they touched, they could leave an imprint on each other”

Like compositions on the same theme, each universe produced this way would be likely to have its own spin on physics. The matter in some bubbles – the boring ones – would fly apart within 10-40 seconds of their creation. Others would be full of particles and rules similar to ours, or even exactly like ours. In the multiverse of eternal inflation, everything that can happen has happened – and will probably happen again.

That notion could explain why the physical constants of our universe seem to be so exquisitely tuned to allow for galaxies, stars, planets and life (see “Just right for life?“).

Sadly, if they do exist, other bubbles are nigh on impossible to learn about. With the space between them and us always expanding, light is too slow to carry any information between different regions. “They could never even know about each other’s existence,” says Matthew Johnson of York University in Toronto, Canada. “It sounds like a fun idea but it seems like there’s no way to test it.”

Read more: Mystery bright spots could be first glimpse of another universe

It pure speculation. Also it makes no difference to the ultra ultra ultra fine tuning seen in our universe

 

[Darkforbid]

You emphasized the problem which has an explanation, in response to my post that the concept of randomness only applies to individual events, and Laws of Nature determine the outcome.

You have not answered the following: When you claim 'lead to chaos' this needs explanation. As worded it is simply an assertion..How do you define chaotic?

As cited; the 'Three-Body Problem has been resolved. Math and Physics work.

Why do you think I posted the 3 body problem, for a solution? It was to demonstrate the massive calculations needed for a vastly simpler system than a star forming nebular. Yes most of the collapsing nebular will collapse into stars but what type planets if any will form is a incalculable roll of the dice and therefore random

chaos I meant: A very small change may make the system behave completely differently.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do you think I posted the 3 body problem, for a solution? It was to demonstrate the massive calculations needed for a vastly simpler system than a star forming nebular. Yes most of the collapsing nebular will collapse into stars but what type planets if any will form is a incalculable roll of the dice and therefore random.

The calculations for solving the three-body problem are not massive and explained well in the referenced article, and actually no longer a problem.

No, only each event is random, and formation of nebula, stars and planets are determined by the laws of nature by the chain of cause and effect relationships of the initial conditions.

chaos I meant: A very small change may make the system behave completely differently.

The definition is incomplete in math and as the definition is applied to science. I prefer the fractal nature of the variation in the outcome of events with many variables as non-linear math explained by Chaos Theory. The outcomes are not completely different but will always fall within a range constrained by the initial conditions and the laws of nature. It is well explained in Chaos: Making a New Science by James Gleick

Examples of fractal relationships are everywhere in nature. Such as: All clouds look like clouds but no two clouds are alike, All tiger strips look like tiger strips, but no two tigers have the same strips. The same is true for fingerprints, and maple leaves It is the underlying pattern of all of nature. Weather forecasting today is based on computer models that use fractal math from Chaos Theory.

It sounds vaguely familiar that you're leading and ID argument for the need of special Creation that without God there would be a Chaotic existence without life.

 

[shunyadragon]

It pure speculation. Also it makes no difference to the ultra ultra ultra fine tuning seen in our universe

Your wishful thinking does not lead to the rejection of the multiverse hypothesis. It is not pure speculation, nor is significant evidence to justify a conclusion, yet.

There is no such thing as ultra ultra ultra fine tuning. Fine tuning is a hypothetical hypothesis to justify a Theist agenda.

 

[Thief]

There is no such thing as ultra ultra ultra fine tuning. Fine tuning is a hypothetical hypothesis to justify a Theist agenda.

so.....the garden event

didn't happen

and Man turned into this form......without God

 

[shunyadragon]

so.....the garden event

didn't happen

No evidence that remotely would support anything in Genesis. Genesis is an evolved mythology beginning with Sumerian records and adopted by the Hebrew ancestors. That is what is based on the evidence.

. . . and Man turned into this form......without God

Humanity and all life on earth is a product of natural evolution, and the history of our universe, galaxy, star and planet are the result of natural processes.. I believe God exists and Created by natural methods and the Laws of Nature that are the Laws of God. If one does not believe in God the nature of our physical existence and its history does not change based on the objective verifiable evidence.

 

[Bear Wild]

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already know that alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit into their narrative.

Click on the link below

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already know that alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit into their narrative.

Click on the link below

God is not dead. God never existed.

 

[Thief]

No evidence that remotely would support anything in Genesis. Genesis is an evolved mythology beginning with Sumerian records and adopted by the Hebrew ancestors. That is what is based on the evidence.



Humanity and all life on earth is a product of natural evolution, and the history of our universe, galaxy, star and planet are the result of natural processes.. I believe God exists and Created by natural methods and the Laws of Nature that are the Laws of God. If one does not believe in God the nature of our physical existence and its history does not change based on the objective verifiable evidence.

so...God never tweaks His creation?

 

[shunyadragon]

so...God never tweaks His creation?

No need to. If he had to, God would not be God.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is one problem with the problem of evil, being that invincibility fights as a nihilistic demon, meaning the omnipotemt met his match and is still benevolent.

One more unfortunate twist of mythology.