Scientific evidence / arguments for God

[FunctionalAtheist]

Well, which one is it? If the singularity existed, either it was "sitting" there since eternal past and then expanded for whatever reason (a reason for which there is no logical sense...because there was nothing outside it to make it expand or nothing within it to make it expand)...or there was a point at which not even the singularity existed, and its existence was a space-time continuum that expanded at an instant from a point of non-existence. I prefer the latter, as it seems to make more logical sense because, if there was matter with no space, where would you put it? And if there was matter with no time, when would you put it??

Then there is a problem. First off, the "laws of physics", due to its degree of precision, had to be fine tuned from the very moment of the big bang, as you seem to agree with. In my opinion, there is no way you can get this kind of precision from anything other than a mind. Now I agree, there was no such thing as time and space before the expansion, no arguments here. The problem is, I am "man" enough to admit that for time and space to have a beginning, its originator had to transcend both time and space. That is the problem, you admitted that there was no such thing as time and space...well, what can give rise to both time and space? Well, the only word in the dictionary that is defined as having the exact qualities needed to fit the bill is God.

Em, now lets see. I did not quite understand your position. :sorry1: That makes me feel silly. We agree that before the big bang (common usage) there was no time or space as we mere mortals can understand. Time and space are properties of this universe. The laws of physics did not exist as we know them either.

So far we agree on the above? Correct me if I’m wrong.

I wonder if our understanding of the laws of physics is compatible in the sense that we can continue discussion without confusion. I do not believe very many people understand what a scientific model is (hypothesis, theory, law). The term law here does not have nearly the same meaning as the word law as used in either moral law or man’s law. Most understand laws as authoritative limits, or, as to limit the behavior of a subject. I.e. you are not permitted to violate the law. This type of law can certainly be violated (free will). It is said by some that the laws of physics cannot be violated. This is not an absolute truth, but it does point out the difference in the usage of the terms. However many, i think, take this point as the universe does not have free will. That may in deed be true as the universe does not even have will, much less free. But it is not the reason a scientific law can not be violated.

The laws of physics do not limit the behavior of the natural; they are descriptions of the behavior of the natural. That is why they cannot be violated (for most places and most times), because they do not tell nature what to do, they merely describe what nature does. They are not necessary for nature to continue on. They exist only as models. In essence, they are very complex ‘words’ or symbols. They are also observationally derived predictions of how nature will behave. This is how scientists verify the veracity of their models. If the model is accurate, the prediction is accurate, and visa verse. As accurate predictions accumulate, at some point we begin calling a successful hypothesis a theory. When a theory or part thereof consistently provides successful predictions at a multitude of observations and no failures to predict seem likely, the theory will be called a law (based on consensuses of the scientific community). When the laws of physics, or any scientific hypothesis, theory, or law ‘break down’ or fail to predict, it means there is a piece of our puzzle missing, or not fitted just right, or maybe even totally off. This happens regularly for hypotheses. Total overturning of theory is rather rare, but tweaking continues for pieces of it. And it is extremely rare that a law has been overturned, if ever. Ok, I know I’m boring you now.

Point is, to say that there was fine-tuning needed makes no sense. To say there was anything like accuracy involved makes no sense. (BTW, to say ‘in your opinion,’ well I can let that go for now.) Saying these things would be equivalent to saying we the universe couldn't have undergone this change this fast because our description of it was not accurate. The changes we see in the earliest moments of the universe have nothing to do with the laws of physics changing. The laws of physics changing did not in any way affect the behavior of the universe. “The laws of physics changed,” means nothing more than that our current models do not accurately describe the behavior of the universe for those brief moments. How could they? You and I both know there is a tiny bit of difference between no space or time, and the universe. (We can not prosecute the universe and send it to jail for our failure to accurately describe its birth.:cover These same laws break down near black holes. All this means is that we are not currently able to describe and predict the behavior of the universe near a black hole.

Do you submit regarding your argument from the change in the laws of physics needing accuracy and fine-tuning prove god?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Now I turn my attention to the argument of something from nothing? I admit that intuitively it is difficult to imagine how nothing can become something. However there seems to be little logical reason to accept this apriori. In fact, there are recent studies involving the nature of ‘nothing’ and it seems our understanding of ‘nothing’ is not nearly as sophisticated as the nature of nothing. I.e. there is a lot of room to improve our description of nothing. There are, as far as I know untested, hypotheses that suggest in fact you might get something from nothing. But I will concede the point at this time as it will degenerate into a vicious cycle of subjective sense verses subjective non-sense resulting in, objectively, nothing:sleep:

However I will not :no:concede the ‘fact’ that there is nothing beyond the singularity. As we have both agreed, time and space as we know it did not exist. Nor can we describe the nature of reality at that point. But the fact that time and space did not exist only applies to this universe, not to anything outside the universe. Any assumption that time and space did not exist outside the universe is apriori. There is no reason to assume there is ‘nothing’ outside the universe. There is no reason to dismiss the notion that indeed time and space did exist before this universe. What about in other universes? Is there any reason to assume, if other universes exist, that they would behave just like this one? Then obviously there is no reason to have any concerns that a different set of laws of physics might apply to every different universe, since the laws of physics or nothing more than a description of behavior. Even different descriptions of time and space, descriptions so vastly different that you would stand up and speak in tongues Time and space could behave in ways that we could not currently conceive, comprehend, or believe.

This still leaves an issue for me. What was right around ‘our’ little singularity? What was between all these universes? Aha, nothing? Possibility maybe, but a conclusion, only apriori.

How can we dismiss the possibility that there is some larger physical reality in which trillions and trillions of universes exist like jellyfish floating in an ocean. I’ll call it Johnson. Who is to say a singularity of infinite mass and occupying no space could not exist in Johnson when no one can describe Johnson? In fact your premise requires exactly something like Johnson. (BTW, your appeal to the dictionary as the limit of what we can call something…well, I’m “MAN” enough to even let that one go right now. :sarcastic) There is no reason time and space as we know them would necessarily even have to be dimensions of Johnson or these other universes. Hard to imagine? The specifics, yes, the logical possibility, not at all. Johnson requires no beginning, requires no time, requires no space, and is 100% natural. The only argument against Johnson is that I can’t describe her. Hardly an argument unless you care to provide an accurate description of god that can predict his behavior. HAHA, my model is better. You can’t even claim to hope to describe god much less predict his behavior. Science necessitates the goal. In other words, in theory, my model could be physically, observationally verified, whereas yours will never be anything more than “you can’t disprove it” at best. tsk tsk

Well, the only word in the dictionary that is defined as having the exact qualities needed to fit the bill is God. No way around it, and if there is, I would love to hear it.

All it takes to get around proof of god, is to look further.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, which one is it? If the singularity existed, either it was "sitting" there since eternal past and then expanded for whatever reason (a reason for which there is no logical sense...because there was nothing outside it to make it expand or nothing within it to make it expand)...or there was a point at which not even the singularity existed, and its existence was a space-time continuum that expanded at an instant from a point of non-existence.

Must we still recite the rather distorted version of Craig's argument?

If the singularity was a point in 0-dimensional space (and therefore spacetime), then there was no eternal "past" because there was no time for there to be a past in. Also, FYI, there's no reason that the reversal process which gets us the big bang and therefore the singularity needed to include a reversal of space, so long as we require space to be infinite at the moment of the big bang.

I prefer the latter, as it seems to make more logical sense because, if there was matter with no space, where would you put it? And if there was matter with no time, when would you put it??

The same place you put god.

Then there is a problem. First off, the "laws of physics", due to its degree of precision, had to be fine tuned from the very moment of the big bang, as you seem to agree with.

Actually, the laws of physics break down at the moment of the big bang. We can only rewind the clock so far.

In my opinion, there is no way you can get this kind of precision from anything other than a mind.

And the only reason you have an opinion is because of this precision. If you toss a coin a several trillion times in a row, the chances that you will get the sequence of heads and tails you do is one in several trillion. You are, however, guarenteed to get a sequence.

Now I agree, there was no such thing as time and space before the expansion, no arguments here.

Lots of arguments. First, there's the problem of the relation between the two. Second, it's possible the singularity existed in infinite spatial expance.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Must we still recite the rather distorted version of Craig's argument?

Oh, you again Legion. First of all, the person that started the thread asked the members of the forum (that believe in God) to provide evidence for God that can't be refuted, and I replied with "the kalam cosmological argument"...now yeah, WLC did help revolutionize the argument but the core of the argument existed long before Dr. Craig's time. So yes, I must recite the kalam cosmological argument. You can say it is distorted all you want but that is about all you can do, since refuting it is obviously out the question.

If the singularity was a point in 0-dimensional space (and therefore spacetime), then there was no eternal "past" because there was no time for there to be a past in.

Ok so you've just basically repeated what I have been maintaining all along, that no time existed before the big bang and therefore a transcendent and timeless agent must have been the creator of time itself. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Also, FYI, there's no reason that the reversal process which gets us the big bang and therefore the singularity needed to include a reversal of space, so long as we require space to be infinite at the moment of the big bang.

Reversal process which gets us the big bang? Makes no sense. There was nothing natural before the the big bang, based on the theory. So there is no "reversal' process which gets us the big bang.

The same place you put god.

Obviously not since God was timeless and is immaterial.

Actually, the laws of physics break down at the moment of the big bang. We can only rewind the clock so far.

And where physics stop, metaphysics begin. The problem is when you have a naturalistic frame of mind you dont even BEGIN to take the supernatural concept to consideration.

And the only reason you have an opinion is because of this precision. If you toss a coin a several trillion times in a row, the chances that you will get the sequence of heads and tails you do is one in several trillion. You are, however, guarenteed to get a sequence.

We are not talking about just a sequence, we are talking about a specified and complex sequence. The universe had to have its low entropy condition "placed" in it at the moment of the big bang, otherwise, you cant get this kind of precision from a random and unguided process. If I have a deck of cards, and I shuffle them, and with the cards face-down, I proceed to hand you every card one by one, what is the chance that you will get the exact numerical sequence of [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, J, Q,K]??? Either card you get is equally improbable, but it is even more improbable to get that specific numerical pattern, and what if the goal was to get the numerical pattern under a specific suit??? Even more improbable. Thats exactly the case with the universe, this universe could have been completely dead.....no life whatsoever, just a bunch of matter and energy floating around in vast space. There is no way you can get this kind of low entropy condition from a unguided process. None.

Lots of arguments. First, there's the problem of the relation between the two. Second, it's possible the singularity existed in infinite spatial expance.

What do you mean "problem of the relation between the two". Space is a thing. If space was at one time COMPLETELY empty of matter, but yet now we have matter, where did the matter come from? And it is impossible for matter to exist without space because matter needs to be occupied by space since there has to be space to put the matter in, then you have time...and if you add time to it then you have the problem of infinite duration. Unless things happened all at once, there is no naturalistic explanation of how you can have one of these components without the other. Its like, what came first, the stomach, or the appetite?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Em, now lets see. I did not quite understand your position. :sorry1: That makes me feel silly. We agree that before the big bang (common usage) there was no time or space as we mere mortals can understand. Time and space are properties of this universe. The laws of physics did not exist as we know them either.

So far we agree on the above? Correct me if I’m wrong.

Its all good....and we definitely agree

I wonder if our understanding of the laws of physics is compatible in the sense that we can continue discussion without confusion. I do not believe very many people understand what a scientific model is (hypothesis, theory, law). The term law here does not have nearly the same meaning as the word law as used in either moral law or man’s law. Most understand laws as authoritative limits, or, as to limit the behavior of a subject. I.e. you are not permitted to violate the law. This type of law can certainly be violated (free will). It is said by some that the laws of physics cannot be violated. This is not an absolute truth, but it does point out the difference in the usage of the terms. However many, i think, take this point as the universe does not have free will. That may in deed be true as the universe does not even have will, much less free. But it is not the reason a scientific law can not be violated.

The laws of physics do not limit the behavior of the natural; they are descriptions of the behavior of the natural. That is why they cannot be violated (for most places and most times), because they do not tell nature what to do, they merely describe what nature does. They are not necessary for nature to continue on. They exist only as models. In essence, they are very complex ‘words’ or symbols. They are also observationally derived predictions of how nature will behave. This is how scientists verify the veracity of their models. If the model is accurate, the prediction is accurate, and visa verse. As accurate predictions accumulate, at some point we begin calling a successful hypothesis a theory. When a theory or part thereof consistently provides successful predictions at a multitude of observations and no failures to predict seem likely, the theory will be called a law (based on consensuses of the scientific community). When the laws of physics, or any scientific hypothesis, theory, or law ‘break down’ or fail to predict, it means there is a piece of our puzzle missing, or not fitted just right, or maybe even totally off. This happens regularly for hypotheses. Total overturning of theory is rather rare, but tweaking continues for pieces of it. And it is extremely rare that a law has been overturned, if ever. Ok, I know I’m boring you now.

:yes:

Point is, to say that there was fine-tuning needed makes no sense. To say there was anything like accuracy involved makes no sense. (BTW, to say ‘in your opinion,’ well I can let that go for now.) Saying these things would be equivalent to saying we the universe couldn't have undergone this change this fast because our description of it was not accurate. The changes we see in the earliest moments of the universe have nothing to do with the laws of physics changing. The laws of physics changing did not in any way affect the behavior of the universe. “The laws of physics changed,” means nothing more than that our current models do not accurately describe the behavior of the universe for those brief moments. How could they? You and I both know there is a tiny bit of difference between no space or time, and the universe. (We can not prosecute the universe and send it to jail for our failure to accurately describe its birth.:cover These same laws break down near black holes. All this means is that we are not currently able to describe and predict the behavior of the universe near a black hole.

Do you submit regarding your argument from the change in the laws of physics needing accuracy and fine-tuning prove god?

I dont know about "change in the laws", but consider this, you know the Star Spangled Banner (of course you do). Suppose I have a copy of the lyrics on print. And lets suppose I cut out every single word to the song and placed all the words in a small bag/box/container, hat, whatever. Lets say I gave the container a nice shake, and as the container is open, with all my might, I throw the container in the air, and the words are scattered in the air, everywhere. What is the probability that each word will randomly and unguide-ly fall to the floor, but each word just happens to fall in place, in the perfect pattern, to form the song, word for word, in the right sequence to formulate the song again? Do you believe that this would ever happen? It is more probable for that to happen than for the universe to start from a high entropy condition and to gradually move to a low entropy condition. The most plausible explanation for all of this is there had to be a Intelligent Designer that placed the low entropy condition IN to the singularity at the moment of the big bang. It was something that was guided, orchestrated, engineered. Not something that was blind, unguided, and random.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Now I turn my attention to the argument of something from nothing? I admit that intuitively it is difficult to imagine how nothing can become something. However there seems to be little logical reason to accept this apriori. In fact, there are recent studies involving the nature of ‘nothing’ and it seems our understanding of ‘nothing’ is not nearly as sophisticated as the nature of nothing. I.e. there is a lot of room to improve our description of nothing. There are, as far as I know untested, hypotheses that suggest in fact you might get something from nothing. But I will concede the point at this time as it will degenerate into a vicious cycle of subjective sense verses subjective non-sense resulting in, objectively, nothing:sleep:

Well, I would like to see what these studies are. The state of nothing is non-being, "not anything", and it is impossible for SOMETHING to come from NOTHING. The state of nothingness doesn't have any pre-conditions or pre-characteristics that will allow for some things to come in to being and not other things. So if something CAN come from nothing, then why just that thing? Why not other things? Does the state of nothingness only allow for that thing and not others?? I dont think so.

However I will not :no:concede the ‘fact’ that there is nothing beyond the singularity. As we have both agreed, time and space as we know it did not exist. Nor can we describe the nature of reality at that point. But the fact that time and space did not exist only applies to this universe, not to anything outside the universe. Any assumption that time and space did not exist outside the universe is apriori. There is no reason to assume there is ‘nothing’ outside the universe.

I agree, and I call that other thing "God". There is still the problem of an eternal past, and we will run in to that problem regardless of how many universes there are out there. Then there is still the problem of entropy...so its still an uphill battle in my opinion.

There is no reason to dismiss the notion that indeed time and space did exist before this universe. What about in other universes? Is there any reason to assume, if other universes exist, that they would behave just like this one? Then obviously there is no reason to have any concerns that a different set of laws of physics might apply to every different universe, since the laws of physics or nothing more than a description of behavior. Even different descriptions of time and space, descriptions so vastly different that you would stand up and speak in tongues Time and space could behave in ways that we could not currently conceive, comprehend, or believe.

The problem of infinity would still pose a threat to any concept of time, whether you slow it down or speed it up.

How can we dismiss the possibility that there is some larger physical reality in which trillions and trillions of universes exist like jellyfish floating in an ocean. I’ll call it Johnson. Who is to say a singularity of infinite mass and occupying no space could not exist in Johnson when no one can describe Johnson? In fact your premise requires exactly something like Johnson. (BTW, your appeal to the dictionary as the limit of what we can call something…well, I’m “MAN” enough to even let that one go right now. :sarcastic) There is no reason time and space as we know them would necessarily even have to be dimensions of Johnson or these other universes. Hard to imagine? The specifics, yes, the logical possibility, not at all. Johnson requires no beginning, requires no time, requires no space, and is 100% natural. The only argument against Johnson is that I can’t describe her. Hardly an argument unless you care to provide an accurate description of god that can predict his behavior. HAHA, my model is better. You can’t even claim to hope to describe god much less predict his behavior. Science necessitates the goal. In other words, in theory, my model could be physically, observationally verified, whereas yours will never be anything more than “you can’t disprove it” at best. tsk tsk

All it takes to get around proof of god, is to look further.

: hamster :

 

[Rexor]

Of course gods exist otherwise the days of the week and some months of the year wouldn't be named after gods, not to mention all the planets and other astronomical bodies.
But do you really think us primates are ever gonna get our heads around the truth of "life the universe and everything"?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I
I dont know about "change in the laws", but consider this, you know the Star Spangled Banner (of course you do). Suppose I have a copy of the lyrics on print. And lets suppose I cut out every single word to the song and placed all the words in a small bag/box/container, hat, whatever. Lets say I gave the container a nice shake, and as the container is open, with all my might, I throw the container in the air, and the words are scattered in the air, everywhere. What is the probability that each word will randomly and unguide-ly fall to the floor, but each word just happens to fall in place, in the perfect pattern, to form the song, word for word, in the right sequence to formulate the song again? Do you believe that this would ever happen? It is more probable for that to happen than for the universe to start from a high entropy condition and to gradually move to a low entropy condition. The most plausible explanation for all of this is there had to be a Intelligent Designer that placed the low entropy condition IN to the singularity at the moment of the big bang. It was something that was guided, orchestrated, engineered. Not something that was blind, unguided, and random.

Here is the problem with your argument. You assume incorrectly that the universe must meet some preconceived conditions. Either you presume it must be just like it is (leading to the same descriptions we have found), or something similar within some parameters. It is an argument based on apriori knowldege of what the expansion should result in.

Your argument makes sense only because man defined the words, and a man wrote them down, in a certain non-random order. The description of what should appear is clear in your mind before you burst the bag. The Star Spangled Banner was designed, therefore the Star Spangled Banner must have been designed. I agree.:run:
While the probability of obtaining this specific universe may be infinitesimal, the probability of obtain some result is 100%. And herein lies the wonder of the scientific method. While some would sit back and wait for someone else to tell them that god is the answer to all their questions, scientist will set about describing whatever the result happens to be. Using observation, experimentation, falsification, etc. to constantly improve their descriptions.

Your argument is based on the assumption that the universe must be just like it is. This is simply not an issue for my argument. Reality is what it is, and we are describing it.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Well, I would like to see what these studies are. The state of nothing is non-being, "not anything", and it is impossible for SOMETHING to come from NOTHING. The state of nothingness doesn't have any pre-conditions or pre-characteristics that will allow for some things to come in to being and not other things. So if something CAN come from nothing, then why just that thing? Why not other things? Does the state of nothingness only allow for that thing and not others?? I dont think so.

I will try to find the references. But as I said it is a mute point as there was something outside the singularity.

I agree, and I call that other thing "God". There is still the problem of an eternal past, and we will run in to that problem regardless of how many universes there are out there. Then there is still the problem of entropy...so its still an uphill battle in my opinion.




The problem of infinity would still pose a threat to any concept of time, whether you slow it down or speed it up.




: hamster :

As I said, time is a property of this universe and there is not even a reason to presume it is a necessary dimension. Eternity is a meaningless term. If you can't imagine existence without time that is only because of our reference universe. As far as entropy, again, it is a property of this universe, and may or may not be a required property. However science has valid descriptions of this universe which incorporate entropy and there is no valid reason to dismiss the notion that entropy can not be incorporated in a description of Johnson.

 

[PolyHedral]

I dont know about "change in the laws", but consider this, you know the Star Spangled Banner (of course you do). Suppose I have a copy of the lyrics on print. And lets suppose I cut out every single word to the song and placed all the words in a small bag/box/container, hat, whatever. Lets say I gave the container a nice shake, and as the container is open, with all my might, I throw the container in the air, and the words are scattered in the air, everywhere. What is the probability that each word will randomly and unguide-ly fall to the floor, but each word just happens to fall in place, in the perfect pattern, to form the song, word for word, in the right sequence to formulate the song again? Do you believe that this would ever happen?

It probably would if you tried 10^650 times.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Here is the problem with your argument. You assume incorrectly that the universe must meet some preconceived conditions.

Well as I stated, just as I dont expect the words from the Star Spangeled Banner to form the patter of the song if the words were randomly flown about, I don't expect the universe to formulate the pattern of a step by step process that has to be fine tuned to the tiniest degree. Yes, for the universe to be life permitting, it absolutely needed to be fine tuned from its very beginning. You just dont get that kind of precision from blind and mindless entities.

Either you presume it must be just like it is (leading to the same descriptions we have found), or something similar within some parameters. It is an argument based on apriori knowldege of what the expansion should result in.

Your argument makes sense only because man defined the words, and a man wrote them down, in a certain non-random order. The description of what should appear is clear in your mind before you burst the bag. The Star Spangled Banner was designed, therefore the Star Spangled Banner must have been designed. I agree.:run:

Right, man wrote the words to the song, and the song contains information. But our DNA code also contains information. We have more information in our DNA than a set of encyclopedias, and encyclopedias were made by man. The more complex you get, the more likely the complexity was the result of an intelligent designer.

While the probability of obtaining this specific universe may be infinitesimal, the probability of obtain some result is 100%. And herein lies the wonder of the scientific method. While some would sit back and wait for someone else to tell them that god is the answer to all their questions, scientist will set about describing whatever the result happens to be. Using observation, experimentation, falsification, etc. to constantly improve their descriptions.

The scientific method cannot be used to explain absolute origins. Science cannot be used to explain the origin of its own domain. You need an external explanation, a transcendent explanation. Science can only tell us how things within the world work and why. Once you get in to absolute origins, science simply has to take a back seat to metaphysics. If there was once a point where the universe didn't exist (all STEM), then you can't possibly use science to explain how the universe came in to be, because there was no natural reality to explain anything.

Your argument is based on the assumption that the universe must be just like it is. This is simply not an issue for my argument. Reality is what it is, and we are describing it.

It must be like it is for life to be permitting. The parameters for a life permitting universe is balanced on a razors edge, and the slightest tinkering with it would be life prohibiting. Random nature....as blind and unguided as it is, could not be the explanation for such precision.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I will try to find the references. But as I said it is a mute point as there was something outside the singularity.

I believe there was something outside the singularity, God.

As I said, time is a property of this universe and there is not even a reason to presume it is a necessary dimension.

Time is a necessary property if there is change. The universe is in motion, it is expanding, things are changing, things are moving. You cannot change without time, you cannot move without time. So it is a very necessary dimension.

Eternity is a meaningless term.

Is it? Why

If you can't imagine existence without time that is only because of our reference universe.

I believe that God was in existence without time.

As far as entropy, again, it is a property of this universe, and may or may not be a required property. However science has valid descriptions of this universe which incorporate entropy and there is no valid reason to dismiss the notion that entropy can not be incorporated in a description of Johnson.

Entropy/the second law of thermodynamics is only used as a further proof that the universe began to exist. If the energy in our universe is running down/out, then obviously, there was a point were it was wound up/started.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It probably would if you tried 10^650 times.

I don't know Poly...every time you try, you run in to the same odds. All you need is one word to fall in the wrong pattern to throw the whole thing off, and then you have to start all over again.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Let's just get right down to it. I am tired of being drawn between accepting facts and fighting the natural desire humanity seems to have to believe in God. I personally miss my days as a believer, and despite most believers thinking most atheists will never change their minds, I am more than happy to. In fact, I used to be a believer in spirituality and such until I was defeated past the point of no return

So, enough of the damn games. Right here, provide your evidence of God that cannot be refuted and, atheists, refute what can be refuted. Let's just end this nonsense.

The evidence for God only comes from understanding humans cannot know everything; you're asking worms for evidence of far away galaxies.

The next step to knowing knowledge isn't possible when looking outside for answers, then realize that looking inside for answers is for the worm to find only what it believes, not the true answers.

And lastly, accept that we don't know if God exists, and assuming either way proposes only that you believe it does. If one's mind creates it, it is an answer for them.

 

[PolyHedral]

I don't know Poly...every time you try, you run in to the same odds. All you need is one word to fall in the wrong pattern to throw the whole thing off, and then you have to start all over again.

Yes. But I asked you to try more times than there are ways to arrange the words, so you will almost certainly get them in the right order.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You can say it is distorted all you want but that is about all you can do, since refuting it is obviously out the question.

Actually, I was referring to your rather distorted presentation of the argument, not that the argument itself is distorted. I think it is unconvincing to say the least, but that's different. And as for the argument being aroung before Craig, I have no doubt that you are familiar with the Islamic tradition, it's relation to Aristotle's Metaphysics, and the scholarship on this from Thomas Aquinas to Enrico Berti's La causalità del motore immobile secondo Aristotele, but as you say nothing about any of this, why does it matter what was around before Craig?

Ok so you've just basically repeated what I have been maintaining all along, that no time existed before the big bang and therefore a transcendent and timeless agent must have been the creator of time itself. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Nope. Because one could just as easily posit that the singularity was trascendent and timeless.

Reversal process which gets us the big bang? Makes no sense.

Do you know how the big bang theory originated? Scientists didn't go into a lab and recreate a few universes or get into a time machine. They constructed a model and ran it in reverse which showed that the universe expanded in a particular way at a particular time. However, they can only run this back so far before they run into a problem: all the laws of physics break down before they get to the actual "big bang" itself.

Obviously not since God was timeless and is immaterial.

So was the singularity which was the origins of the universe. Or it's turtles all the way down. Either way, saying "there was no space or time so there must have been a creator who existed in a very special way (without space or time)" is no more of an explanation than "the singularity existed in a very special way (without space or time)".

And where physics stop, metaphysics begin

Um, this is after the universe began. After the universe began, all laws of physics break down. Google "Planck time".

We are not talking about just a sequence, we are talking about a specified and complex sequence.

All sequences are specified. Also, define "complex".

The universe had to have its low entropy condition "placed" in it at the moment of the big bang, otherwise, you cant get this kind of precision from a random and unguided process. If I have a deck of cards, and I shuffle them, and with the cards face-down, I proceed to hand you every card one by one, what is the chance that you will get the exact numerical sequence of [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, J, Q,K]???

The same as getting any other. If you deal me a deck of cards, every single sequence has the same probability.

Either card you get is equally improbable, but it is even more improbable to get that specific numerical pattern

No, it isn't. Google "permutations".

and what if the goal was to get the numerical pattern under a specific suit??? Even more improbable. Thats exactly the case with the universe

So if entity is around capable of having a goal, and that goal is the fine-tuning of the cosmos for humans, life, etc., then (if the odds for this fine-tuning are astronomically small compared to...something) we have proved that there must be an entity around capable of ensuring that goal.

You assume a certain goal is present in your argument, which means you have some entity capable of having a goal around before the universe. In other words you assume what you are trying to prove, and use your assumption to prove it.

There is no way you can get this kind of low entropy condition from a unguided process. None.

What kind of condition would we get from an unguided process? What's the probability space we're dealing with here?

What do you mean "problem of the relation between the two". Space is a thing.

So what is spacetime?

If space was at one time COMPLETELY empty of matter

Define "matter" in a way consistent with your interpretation of quantum superpositional states, entanglement, and decoherence and which is at least posited by some accepted model of modern physics.

where did the matter come from?

After the universe began (and therefore when, according to you, we have "space" and "time" and so on), how much matter was there? What was it's nature?

And it is impossible for matter to exist without space because matter needs to be occupied by space since there has to be space to put the matter in, then you have time

So, all the matter in the universe at one point was a tiny, tiny, dot and which expanded into more matter. Did god keep creating more and more matter until we had all that we need? Or can you shrink all the matter into the universe into something so small you can't even see it with a microscope (without breaking the "laws of physics")?

Its like, what came first, the stomach, or the appetite?

The stomach.

 

[1137]

Haha, page 8

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well as I stated, just as I dont expect the words from the Star Spangeled Banner to form the patter of the song if the words were randomly flown about, I don't expect the universe to formulate the pattern of a step by step process that has to be fine tuned to the tiniest degree. Yes, for the universe to be life permitting, it absolutely needed to be fine tuned from its very beginning.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it is astronomically, utterly, completely and "in all other ways inconceivable" that life as we know it could have emerged were the universe not "fine tuned". Let's imagine that it would be equivalent to the probability of breaking Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (all volumes) into every instance of every letter, putting them into a bag, shaking them up, and pouring them out, yet getting the same order in his original work. Incredibly unlikely.

Why assume that life as we know it is the only way life can emerge? Put another way, imagine a lottery: in this lottery, their are googol raised to googol number of tickets. Only one is a winner. Yet, thanks to the single tickets bought buy people who can barely afford to buy anything, and the millions or trillians bought buy the super rich, every ticket is purchased. The chance that any single ticket is the winning one is so small it might as well be 0. Yet, because all the tickets are purchased, the probability that someone gets the winning ticket is assured.

Imagine the universe could have been "fine tuned" just as many ways. But one of these had to be "picked". Every single other way in which the universe could be "fine tuned" is also so incredibly tiny that it is basically zero. But any one of them could be picked.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually, I was referring to your rather distorted presentation of the argument, not that the argument itself is distorted.

Hmmm, distorted? How is it distorted? I am using the big bang theory, which is the best current explanation we have in regards to the origin of the universe, plus I have been arguing against an actual infinity. That is pretty much the argument in a nut shell. Now where is the distortion? Now based on the responses that you continue to give it seems apparent that you me are also incapable of refuting the argument.

I think it is unconvincing to say the least, but that's different.

Well, present your case against it then

And as for the argument being aroung before Craig, I have no doubt that you are familiar with the Islamic tradition, it's relation to Aristotle's Metaphysics, and the scholarship on this from Thomas Aquinas to Enrico Berti's La causalità del motore immobile secondo Aristotele, but as you say nothing about any of this, why does it matter what was around before Craig?

I thought you were basically saying that I am "copying" off of Dr. Craig or stealing his argument. My bad. My point was the argument was around long before him, which it was, and no one is accusing him of stealing it. Lets just say the kalam argument is the argument that keeps on giving

Nope. Because one could just as easily posit that the singularity was trascendent and timeless.

Well that wont work, because the question would then become if the singularity was transcendent and timeless, why did it all of a sudden expand only 13.7 billion years ago?? If it was sitting there for eternity, why did it all of a sudden expand? There was no causal agent that transcended the singularity to make it expand, so why did it expand all of a sudden? Why didn't it expand yesterday? Or tomorrow...why did it expand at that exact moment and not before or later??

Do you know how the big bang theory originated? Scientists didn't go into a lab and recreate a few universes or get into a time machine. They constructed a model and ran it in reverse which showed that the universe expanded in a particular way at a particular time. However, they can only run this back so far before they run into a problem: all the laws of physics break down before they get to the actual "big bang" itself.

It started with Einstein and his ToR. You don't have to construct a model and 'run it in reverse. All you have to do is observe the fact that the universe is expanding, and then think "Well, if the universe is currently expanding outwards as we speak, if we go backwards in time, the universe will get smaller and smaller and everything will eventually shrink back in to a single point". That's all you have to do. The fact of the matter is the universe began to exist. That in itself was an amazing discovery by science.

So was the singularity which was the origins of the universe. Or it's turtles all the way down. Either way, saying "there was no space or time so there must have been a creator who existed in a very special way (without space or time)" is no more of an explanation than "the singularity existed in a very special way (without space or time)".

I repeat, no scientist is suggesting that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity and waiting to expand, as you seem to think when you keep stating that the singularity was timeless and such. The singularity was not sitting from past eternity waiting to expand, because as I mentioned above there was no pre-causal conditions or pre-causal agent to make it expand. So why didn't it expand billions of years sooner or billions or years later? There is no answer to this.

Um, this is after the universe began. After the universe began, all laws of physics break down. Google "Planck time".

Science can't go back any further than Planck time. That is why I said when physics stop, metaphysics begin. There is no physical reality before Planck time, that is why all physics break down. So if physics break down, there is no need to try to use physical reasoning.

All sequences are specified. Also, define "complex".

It is not just the sequence, it is the pattern of the sequence. The pattern is determined beforehand, and to get that independent pattern makes adds to the complexity.

Complex | Define Complex at Dictionary.com I prefer the second and third definition.

The same as getting any other. If you deal me a deck of cards, every single sequence has the same probability.

Lol. So lets try an analogy, shall we. Lets say there are a gazillion black balls in this big container. And amongst these gazillion back balls, there is only one white ball. And lets say you were kidnapped by aliens, and they want to have some fun with you. They blindfold you and tell you "there are a gazillion black balls in this big container, but there is also one white ball inside as well. We are going to put you inside the container, you can swim around, do whatever you want. But in two minutes, we want you to come out of the container with a ball in your hand. If you pull a black ball, we will torture you and kill you. But if you pull the white ball, we will let you live." Now keep in mind, you are blindfolded.

Now think about this...you just said that "every single sequence has the same probability"...which you are right, every ball has the same probability of being pulled by you. But it is even more OVERWHELMINGLY improbable that you will pull that one white ball. So this is more than just a sequence we are talking about here, it is the independent pattern. Think about it, if you were told by the aliens to pick a black ball, you wouldn't be worried now, would you?

No, it isn't. Google "permutations".

Lol. Lets add a twist to it. Lets say in that same black ball example I gave above, lets exchange the balls into numbers on a piece of paper, and there are a gazillion sheets of tiny pieces of paper and each paper contains a number, no number is written twice, and each piece of paper have a number, from 1-gazillion. Lets say the aliens get you in the container with the numbers, and they tell you "We want you to pick three pieces of paper, and you must get them in the numerical order, from 1-3, in that exact order. If you dont, we will torture you and kill you".

Now I want you to appeal to the mathematical branch of "permutations" for this one :yes:

You assume a certain goal is present in your argument

Well, as I look at the complexity and fine tuning of my laptop, I am going to assume that there was a goal present. Even if I had no knowledge of a laptop whatsoever I wont assume that it configured itself by random chance.

which means you have some entity capable of having a goal around before the universe. In other words you assume what you are trying to prove, and use your assumption to prove it.

Based on the precision needed for the universe to be life permitting, I would say yes, the entity that created it had to have a WILL to create, and created it based on that will. You don't get that kind of precision from a freak accident. You get it from a mind, an intelligent mind.

What kind of condition would we get from an unguided process? What's the probability space we're dealing with here?

We would get a life prohibiting universe instead of a life permitting universe. If you put a brick on your gas pedal and put the car in drive, the car is unguided, right? Will the car dodge things that are in its path? Will it slow down for pedestrians? Well, what about the universe. When the singularity expanded, it was COMPLETELY unguided. Completely blind. Yet, we have all of this complexity, and purpose.

So what is spacetime?

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Define "matter" in a way consistent with your interpretation of quantum superpositional states, entanglement, and decoherence and which is at least posited by some accepted model of modern physics.

Anything composed of mass.

After the universe began (and therefore when, according to you, we have "space" and "time" and so on), how much matter was there? What was it's nature?

A lot of crazy things happened in the universe since the big bang. I don't know how much matter there was, or what was its nature.

So, all the matter in the universe at one point was a tiny, tiny, dot and which expanded into more matter. Did god keep creating more and more matter until we had all that we need? Or can you shrink all the matter into the universe into something so small you can't even see it with a microscope (without breaking the "laws of physics")?

Don't know exactly how God did it. One can only speculate. I am willing to go along with science, as long as we are finally able to admit that the universe did indeed begin to exist. Thats all we need science for. Let God do the rest.

The stomach.

So the stomach came before the craving of food even existed huh. So we didn't have the craving for food, but we had the mechanism in place so we can have a storage place for the food that we did eat.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well that wont work, because the question would then become if the singularity was transcendent and timeless, why did it all of a sudden expand only 13.7 billion years ago??

And how is this suddenly irrelevant if we factor in God?

If it was sitting there for eternity, why did it all of a sudden expand?

It wasn't "sitting there" as this is a temporal conception of an atemporal phenomenon.

There was no causal agent that transcended the singularity to make it expand, so why did it expand all of a sudden?

What is causation?

I tend to get exposed a good many news stories in some online site, blog, print newspaper, magazine, etc., both from threads on this forum and from people I know who insist on telling me about something they read somewhere about what some "study" showed. The problem is that the more "newsworthy" a study is, the more likely it is wrong, unsubstantiated, and/or the media have misrepresented it. But these reports have such fantastic headlines and and implications that are rarely something I can duplicate.

Until now, thanks to the American Institute of Physics and the conference they held in 2011 on retrocausation. One of the papers in the published in the volume of accepted papers from the conferences was "Causality Is Inconsistent With Quantum Field Theory". In recent years, there have been an increase in papers which try to deal with our ability to turn what had been only thought experiments into actual experiments, and the problems these posed for classical causation. So much so, in fact, that not only is there a name for a specific type of causality violation (retrocausation) the AIP had a conference about the state of research on the topic.

The gist of the paper (and the relevant studies related to it) is that it appears increasingly likely that classical causality (in order for one thing to "cause" another, it must happen before it and be located spatially near it) is contradicted by experimental and theoretical physics

Why might this matter, or how might this be relevant to every day experience? Well, perhaps it explains our everday experience. Classical physics and classical causation has thus far failed to explain how what appears to be "mental causation" (i.e., the ability of conscious systems like humans to "self-determine" such that they are capable of choosing A when they really could have chosen B). This is because both require a reductionist, localized, and spatio-temporal causal model. That is, even though it appears as if one chooses to do something, we could explain this choice (at least in theory) by the state of every component of every neuron in one's brain the moment before the choice was made, meaning that one couldn't actually have made any other choice.

This model, which was theoretically challenged with the advent of quantum theory at the turn of the 20th century, has an increasing amount of empirical evidence against it. So much so, in fact, that the paper linked to proclaims this understanding of causlity is simply contradicted by modern physics.

Which means I too finally get to link to a sensationalist sounding article, although this isn't a blog or a news article, but is part of the cutting-edge scientific literature within the physics community.

Why didn't it expand yesterday? Or tomorrow...why did it expand at that exact moment and not before or later??

How does god give us better answers to these questions?

It started with Einstein and his ToR.

That's like saying it started with Newton. If you can't actually explain where the "big bang theory" came from and how we know (for example) the age of the universe, then you have no basis for saying anything about the state at the time of the big bang.

You don't have to construct a model and 'run it in reverse. All you have to do is observe the fact that the universe is expanding, and then think "Well, if the universe is currently expanding outwards as we speak, if we go backwards in time, the universe will get smaller and smaller and everything will eventually shrink back in to a single point".

1) How does that give us the "age" of the universe? Why couldn't it be four hundred billion years old? Or 2 billion?
2) There is nothing in modern physics which explains how you can fit all the matter in the universe into a dot.

That's all you have to do.

Not understand physics?

I repeat, no scientist is suggesting that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity and waiting to expand, as you seem to think when you keep stating that the singularity was timeless and such.

And no scientist is saying that what you are about physics, time, or space.

Science can't go back any further than Planck time. That is why I said when physics stop, metaphysics begin. There is no physical reality before Planck time, that is why all physics break down. So if physics break down, there is no need to try to use physical reasoning.

"physics breaks down" after the big bang. According to you, we now have space and time thanks to some guy sitting in a chair without time. So why do we need metaphyiscs now that we have the universe?

It is not just the sequence, it is the pattern of the sequence. The pattern is determined beforehand, and to get that independent pattern makes adds to the complexity.

All sequences have patterns.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complex?s=t

Complex | Define Complex at Dictionary.com I prefer the second and third definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complex?s=t

Fantastic. You've used a dictionary to describe one of the most studied concepts in mathematics, physics, biology, computer science, neuroscience, cosmology, etc. Unfortunately, it is inconsistent with the actual non-technical use (HINT: Springer's Understanding Complexity consists of everything from monograph series to journals. This is one of the most studied fields in science. Read).

Lol. So lets try an analogy, shall we.

Let's do this instead. Let's assume you have a knowledge of statistics, probability, and mathematics. So talk about the probability space you are claiming entails a creator.

Now I want you to appeal to the mathematical branch of "permutations" for this one :yes:

You already did. The fact that you lack the background or knowledge to understand the relationship between probability, permutations, and your diatribe on aliens doesn't change that relationship.

Well, as I look at the complexity and fine tuning of my laptop, I am going to assume that there was a goal present.

You, when you look at something which is not complex at all, you are going to demonstrate that you haven't studied complexity?

Based on the precision needed for the universe to be life permitting

You are assuming that life could only be what we understand it to be. And what we understand it to be is based on what's on one planet.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

I'm glad you can link to websites, but that doesn't address what I asked.

A lot of crazy things happened in the universe since the big bang. I don't know how much matter there was, or what was its nature.

So there are lots of "crazy things" you can't explain, but somehow the big bang requires god, and these do not? And if the universe is so fine-tuned, why all these crazy things?

So the stomach came before the craving of food even existed huh. So we didn't have the craving for food, but we had the mechanism in place so we can have a storage place for the food that we did eat.

Yes. Look at a book on fetal development which includes a section on cognition.