Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:String Theory doesn't replace the need for a creator. It simply illustrates how Science has to contort and adapt to explain things without a creator. When you look closely at String Theory and listen to what is being said and how it is framed, it appears to me to be more metaphysical than pure science.

Yes fair enough - but what I still dont understand is dont scientists know that they are putting the regression part back one more and not really coming up with any real answers, even if it is metapyshical - or are they saying that the strings that make us up are eternal?

Silvertusk wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:String Theory doesn't replace the need for a creator. It simply illustrates how Science has to contort and adapt to explain things without a creator. When you look closely at String Theory and listen to what is being said and how it is framed, it appears to me to be more metaphysical than pure science.

Yes fair enough - but what I still dont understand is dont scientists know that they are putting the regression part back one more and not really coming up with any real answers, even if it is metapyshical - or are they saying that the strings that make us up are eternal?

I can't speak for what scientists may know or not know in doing this.

There's a few things to consider in the midst.

1. Science is inadequate to answer questions of purpose and design. Science can tell us how things come to pass, assuming the subject matter is purely material. Science cannot answer questions of why they come to pass outside of the process itself.

2. Christians in my opinion, need to be wary of creating arguments that point to unexplained phenomenon as arguments for the "need" of God. This is often called the "God of the Gaps" argument. Where Scripture itself is silent on a technical issue of how God did something, it makes no sense to argue a point further. A consequence of that type of approach is that if or when a reasonable explanation is developed based on good evidence, that provides an explanation, someone might deduce that the basis for faith in God is ignorance or a need to explain something in the absence of any other explanation.

Understanding in a physical context how God accomplished something (assuming He worked through the natural laws he himself established, which is not necessarily a given) is seen by some Christians as a threat to faith, and it simply doesn't have to be. It's no more true that increased knowledge has to lead to human pride and a sense of self-sufficienty (although often it does.)

There is a point in science in terms of moving back to beginnings or first cause in which you have to either presuppose the eternality of matter and energy; even if you interpose several layers of translation of the two from one to the other, or the existence and exchange of the same through multiple dimensions.

Banky wrote:#2 The Prime Mover Argument (which is what you are referring to) is self contradictory. The logic follows that something must have been the first cause because nothing can be infinite, and then assigns that first cause to "God." However, the concept of an infinite God leads to a logical fallacy. If nothing can be infinite, then neither can God. If *something* can be infinite, then there's no need for a first cause.

This sounds like introduction arguments I heard against the prime mover argument in my philosophy of religion class.

If one digs deeper there is nothing at all contradictory about God being timeless and then entering into temporality at creation. Something can be infinitely timeless, but it is another kettle of fish to say something can be actually infinite temporally (in other words actual infinite cause and effect). The burden of proof therefore falls on the one who believes such a thing.

Banky wrote:It is just as plausible that the universe itself posses the very same qualities of infiniteness that creationists assign to God. In fact, there are many many scenarios that one can come up with that don't involve a sentient creator.

What are there scenarios of which you speak? I would like to critique them.

Kurieuo wrote:This sounds like introduction arguments I heard against the prime mover argument in my philosophy of religion class.

If one digs deeper there is nothing at all contradictory about God being timeless and then entering into temporality at creation. Something can be infinitely timeless, but it is another kettle of fish to say something can be actually infinite temporally (in other words actual infinite cause and effect). The burden of proof therefore falls on the one who believes such a thing.

Essenyially what you are saying (if I may) is that "the rules" say that we can't have ifinite cause and effect, therefore the first cause is something that exists outside of "the rules." However, maybe we just don't fully understand "the rules."

The burden of proof lies equally on the shoulders of both parties. It's not as if you can travel to a place where God exists, and then all of the sudden you will understand timelessness any better.

Kurieuo wrote:

Banky wrote:It is just as plausible that the universe itself posses the very same qualities of infiniteness that creationists assign to God. In fact, there are many many scenarios that one can come up with that don't involve a sentient creator.

What are there scenarios of which you speak? I would like to critique them.

Imagine God. Now imagine all of the nonsentient qualities that make him God.....timelessness, invisibility, etc. Now imagine this place where he exists.....how ever you want to imagine it whether it be a place called heaven, or everywhere at the same time, everywhere at all times, no where.....whatever you want. Take whatever it is that makes him exist outside of "the rules".........these very "rules" that requires a first cause, the same rules that prevent infiniteness.

Now imagine you could jump into a magic rocket ship that takes you there, and when you show up you expect to see God and have him explain everything to you. But, instead, you get there and you see exactly the same thing you see here......the universe. However, there is one big exception. This universe exists outside "the rules." It has the very same qualities that God has that allows him to exist outise of "the rules" but it is really nothing more than a bunch of nontemporal atoms. And then every trillion years or so these atoms jump into our existence....not because of a sentient decision that they make, or because it was good and moral, or because there is some greater purpose or goal.....but simply because that is the nature of this other plane.

I can leave the scenario there. It's complete. But lets take it one step further:

Lets say that when you arrived in your magic rocket ship that this "nontemporal" universe exists exactly how I described. However, lets say that it was completely transparent to you. In otherwords, when you got there, all you "saw" was a universe exactly like ours. To the best of your understanding, despite the fact that it had these nontemporal qualities that are required to allow it to be infinite, you were unable to detect these qualities and you incorrectly deduced that this was, in fact, just another temporal universe.

Would you then conclude that there must be a sentient God who existed in a non-nontemporal place so that he could create the nontemporal universe so that it could create our universe?

Essenyially what you are saying (if I may) is that "the rules" say that we can't have ifinite cause and effect, therefore the first cause is something that exists outside of "the rules." However, maybe we just don't fully understand "the rules."

The burden of proof lies equally on the shoulders of both parties. It's not as if you can travel to a place where God exists, and then all of the sudden you will understand timelessness any better.

I am playing by the rules of logic which are I believe are fairly well understood by us. I see no reason why I (or you) must keep to temporality which just produces the absurdities you have raised for both sides. Wouldn't it be better to therefore discard it? While it might be hard to conceive of timelessness, there is nothing logically impossible with such a concept. Timelessness could perhaps be conceived of as a changeless state, and is an entirely different concept to that of an infinite which often has temporal connotations.

Allow me to ask a hypothetical question. If an old man counted -3 -2 -1 0, and then looked up all smiling and told you he spent most of his life doing it, but he has now finally done it - he just counted from negative infinity to zero. Is there any possibility he could be telling the truth?

I see timelessness is the only way out of the conundrum faced as to why today (lets call it point zero) is reached if cause and effect regress infinitely into the past.

Kurieuo wrote:

Essenyially what you are saying (if I may) is that "the rules" say that we can't have ifinite cause and effect, therefore the first cause is something that exists outside of "the rules." However, maybe we just don't fully understand "the rules."

The burden of proof lies equally on the shoulders of both parties. It's not as if you can travel to a place where God exists, and then all of the sudden you will understand timelessness any better.

Allow me to ask a hypothetical question. If an old man counted -3 -2 -1 0, and then looked up all smiling and told you he spent most of his life doing it, but he has now finally done it - he just counted from negative infinity to zero. Is there any possibility he could be telling the truth?

Since the man has a finite existence, then I'd say no (but I do like the scenario )

However, you are extending a quality that we know exists in humans (or at least we perceive exists) and extending it to atoms and energy......or to even something beyond that that we don't yet understand (but not necessarily a sentient creator or something beyond the physical universe).

Banky wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Banky wrote:It is just as plausible that the universe itself posses the very same qualities of infiniteness that creationists assign to God. In fact, there are many many scenarios that one can come up with that don't involve a sentient creator.

What are there scenarios of which you speak? I would like to critique them.

Imagine God. Now imagine all of the nonsentient qualities that make him God.....timelessness, invisibility, etc. Now imagine this place where he exists.....how ever you want to imagine it whether it be a place called heaven, or everywhere at the same time, everywhere at all times, no where.....whatever you want. Take whatever it is that makes him exist outside of "the rules".........these very "rules" that requires a first cause, the same rules that prevent infiniteness.

Now imagine you could jump into a magic rocket ship that takes you there, and when you show up you expect to see God and have him explain everything to you. But, instead, you get there and you see exactly the same thing you see here......the universe. However, there is one big exception. This universe exists outside "the rules." It has the very same qualities that God has that allows him to exist outise of "the rules" but it is really nothing more than a bunch of nontemporal atoms. And then every trillion years or so these atoms jump into our existence....not because of a sentient decision that they make, or because it was good and moral, or because there is some greater purpose or goal.....but simply because that is the nature of this other plane.

Lets say that when you arrived in your magic rocket ship that this "nontemporal" universe exists exactly how I described. However, lets say that it was completely transparent to you. In otherwords, when you got there, all you "saw" was a universe exactly like ours. To the best of your understanding, despite the fact that it had these nontemporal qualities that are required to allow it to be infinite, you were unable to detect these qualities and you incorrectly deduced that this was, in fact, just another temporal universe.

It is interesting that we can come so close to similar conclusions with your rather impressive use of a timelessness, yet we remain so far on what could probably be considered a logical quibble. Please hear me out...

You say imagine the place where God exists. To clarify my belief, I do not believe God exists anywhere. Rather I believe God exists everywhere for everything has its existence inside of God. Before God brought about changes in His state of existence through creative acts, I believe there was only God, fully complete and self-contained in Himself. So going back to your story, if I take that rocket ship to see God, such is not really feasible for I am already at my destination. Would I then conclude that there must be a sentient God elsewhere? I don't believe I can even get started answering that question.

However, extending your concept, lets say I go back through time to the timeless state God was in before any creative act.* I would essentially be in that timeless universe you describe only my destination in this universe is God Himself. You would maintain it is the universe, while I maintain it is God. The logical quibble we have is that the timeless entity you would believe spawned off our temporal world is non-sentient, whereas I believe a sentient timeless being creating our world. I find it ironic we could be so close, yet so far a part.

We have taken the argument for a Prime Mover to a new level of complexity, and although it is a level it can be taken to, I find for these reasons that it is often quite useless due to the fact such complexities are hard to dialogue through with many people. The complexity does not even end here, for our reasoning now focuses on trying to work out whether sentience or non-sentience is at play (as you have exposed above).

So to extend the argument even deeper, I believe it is logically unsound to believe that timeless non-sentient matter could "change" its state to bring about temporality. For I believe change is only possible by the timeless "something" if it has a will to bring about change in itself (and a will requires sentience). For example, if we have a timeless universe of atoms, for that universe to really possess the quality of timelessness, all those atoms must remain static. If they did not, then there will be states before and after other states, and as such the universe is really temporal and does not ever really possess the quality of timelessness. If we have a timeless universe, it ought to be stuck forever in its static state for there is nothing in it to bring about change. On the other hand, a sentient being who has a will and power, could exist in a timeless state and then enact upon its will to change its state to enter into temporality. Thus, given temporality exists, I argue only a sentient being can be the timeless causer - the Prime Mover.

* For those who might take exception with my saying timelessness existed "before" creation and time (which implies a time before time), I do not see such as illogical. Timelessness now exists before creation due to time's coming into existence. It is illogical, magical even, to think the effect of the cause can retrocause its own cause which in turn causes itself.

Banky wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Essenyially what you are saying (if I may) is that "the rules" say that we can't have ifinite cause and effect, therefore the first cause is something that exists outside of "the rules." However, maybe we just don't fully understand "the rules."

The burden of proof lies equally on the shoulders of both parties. It's not as if you can travel to a place where God exists, and then all of the sudden you will understand timelessness any better.

Allow me to ask a hypothetical question. If an old man counted -3 -2 -1 0, and then looked up all smiling and told you he spent most of his life doing it, but he has now finally done it - he just counted from negative infinity to zero. Is there any possibility he could be telling the truth?

Since the man has a finite existence, then I'd say no (but I do like the scenario )

However, you are extending a quality that we know exists in humans (or at least we perceive exists) and extending it to atoms and energy......or to even something beyond that that we don't yet understand (but not necessarily a sentient creator or something beyond the physical universe).

The realm of metaphysical issues may not be able to tell us what is real, but it can rule out possibilities. I am frankly more a philosopher than scientist. I see each deal with different realms: Scientists look at and observe what is around us, while philosophers reason about what is or is not possible. Yet each borrow from each others realm in their pursuit of truth and reality: Scientists reason and deduce why things they observe are as they are, while philosophers reason about why things observed are as they are (and even if they are as they appear to be). If strictly sticking to science and our physical universe, then I guess we just have to stop at the absurdity of our universe coming into existence from an infinitesimally small point (i.e., nothing) without really dwelling on it?

So to extend the argument even deeper, I believe it is logically unsound to believe that timeless non-sentient matter could "change" its state to bring about temporality. For I believe change is only possible by the timeless "something" if it has a will to bring about change in itself (and a will requires sentience). For example, if we have a timeless universe of atoms, for that universe to really possess the quality of timelessness, all those atoms must remain static. If they did not, then there will be states before and after other states, and as such the universe is really temporal and does not ever really possess the quality of timelessness. If we have a timeless universe, it ought to be stuck forever in its static state for there is nothing in it to bring about change. On the other hand, a sentient being who has a will and power, could exist in a timeless state and then enact upon its will to change its state to enter into temporality. Thus, given temporality exists, I argue only a sentient being can be the timeless causer - the Prime Mover.

Clarification - what I presented to you was a hypotheticao scenario, not my belief. It appears as though you may have missed the main point, which was the moment you landed in the other universe with "different rules" but looked exactly like this one. Because, in reality, exactly the same scenario can apply to this universe.

A lack of understanding of the origins of the universe shouldn't lead someone to make up rules that the universe must follow and then make up a character (with very specific qualities) who is convieniently not bound by those rules.

It's the same argument as saying that things don't float, therefore there most be an invisible object that it is sitting on....which, convieniently, DOES float.

Second point:

Stuff changes all the time without sentience. However, if you want to believe that the "first cause" MUST have willed the universe, then are you capable of believing that it was, possibly, *stupid*? (I'm not saying God is stupid......just asking if it is possible for a "creater" to be less intelligent than is commonly accepted).

Banky wrote:

So to extend the argument even deeper, I believe it is logically unsound to believe that timeless non-sentient matter could "change" its state to bring about temporality. For I believe change is only possible by the timeless "something" if it has a will to bring about change in itself (and a will requires sentience). For example, if we have a timeless universe of atoms, for that universe to really possess the quality of timelessness, all those atoms must remain static. If they did not, then there will be states before and after other states, and as such the universe is really temporal and does not ever really possess the quality of timelessness. If we have a timeless universe, it ought to be stuck forever in its static state for there is nothing in it to bring about change. On the other hand, a sentient being who has a will and power, could exist in a timeless state and then enact upon its will to change its state to enter into temporality. Thus, given temporality exists, I argue only a sentient being can be the timeless causer - the Prime Mover.

Clarification - what I presented to you was a hypotheticao scenario, not my belief. It appears as though you may have missed the main point, which was the moment you landed in the other universe with "different rules" but looked exactly like this one. Because, in reality, exactly the same scenario can apply to this universe.

This is how I understood and took what you were meaning. It was a hypothetical with implications towards reality, so I responded to your hypothetical, then reasoned whether the implications that a timeless universe could be the first cause of everything is a possibility.

Banky wrote:A lack of understanding of the origins of the universe shouldn't lead someone to make up rules that the universe must follow and then make up a character (with very specific qualities) who is convieniently not bound by those rules.

Is this not what infinite or multiple universe theorists do? Yet, no rules are being made up. In fact philosophers use strict logical rules when discussing metaphysical issues such as I have done here. Furthermore, we have strong evidence that if you follow the expansion of our universe backwards it comes to an infinitesimally small point where time, space and matter comes into existence. Science can only deal with the physical realm, so perhaps we should leave it at that point and not ask any further questions.

Banky wrote:Stuff changes all the time without sentience. However, if you want to believe that the "first cause" MUST have willed the universe, then are you capable of believing that it was, possibly, *stupid*? (I'm not saying God is stupid......just asking if it is possible for a "creater" to be less intelligent than is commonly accepted).

You are leaving out some accepted points. In order to avoid the absurdity of an infinite regress, something which exists timelessly out of which everything began is required. Whether or not the metaphysical concept of "timelessness" is being understood, or my further reasoning was understood, I provided what I believe to be sound reasoning for why this timeless entity could not be non-sentient.

I think it should be left at this for it seems you may not like talking metaphysics, which is fine. Yet I see this is what is required when talking about what was before the beginning of our universe.

Kurieuo wrote:Is this not what infinite or multiple universe theorists do? Yet, no rules are being made up. In fact philosophers use strict logical rules when discussing metaphysical issues such as I have done here. Furthermore, we have strong evidence that if you follow the expansion of our universe backwards it comes to an infinitesimally small point where time, space and matter comes into existence. Science can only deal with the physical realm, so perhaps we should leave it at that point and not ask any further questions.

We aren't talking about the rules of logic. I think you (and I) are being quite logical. But logic method by which we *think* and can only be applied to the information we have. IOW, I can only logically conclude that it won't rain right now becasue their are no clouds out based on the *assumption* that you need clouds for rain. I can *logically* conclude that it WILL rain based on some other assumption. One can still be logical with bad information.

So the "made up" rules I refer to is the idea that the universe cannot be infinite (or that the universe IS infinite.......both have equal qualities of madeupness).

If you follow the expansion of matter backward, you come to a point where it was before it is where it is now. That's it. We don't know if that is where "time" began. We don't know if that is where "space" began. We also don't know if it was an infitesimally small point, or if it was the size of a collapsed galaxy. We also don't know what happened before the universe began to expand. Did it appear out of nowhere? Was it created from energy in a process like fission? Is it an oscilating universe where there moment before it began to expand, it was being pulled together by gravity until it's mass was so enormous that it expolded?

Kurieuo wrote:You are leaving out some accepted points. In order to avoid the absurdity of an infinite regress, something which exists timelessly out of which everything began is required. Whether or not the metaphysical concept of "timelessness" is being understood, or my further reasoning was understood, I provided what I believe to be sound reasoning for why this timeless entity could not be non-sentient.

An infinite regress is no more absurd that an eternal dream state in which reality is an illusion, or an invisible all powerful sentient creater who exists outside of the rules that we *assign* the universe, or a whole family of multiple creaters that live on top of Mt. Olympus.

Personally I think your arguments do show sound reasoning, but IMO they make just as many assumptions as the opposing arguments. For this very reason we call it a belief or theory. If you remove the idea of God, most of what goes on in the universe is the reaction of something that is either far less intelligent than us, completely non-sentient, or completely lifeless. If you include the idea of God, the everything is the reaction of intelligence and sentience. In either scenario, that quality is not being *observed* but rather *assigned*.

Banky wrote:An infinite regress is no more absurd that an eternal dream state in which reality is an illusion, or an invisible all powerful sentient creater who exists outside of the rules that we *assign* the universe, or a whole family of multiple creaters that live on top of Mt. Olympus.

I had assumed you had accepted an infinite regression to be an impossibility, but I guess this was mistaken on my part. There are some good arguments against the possibility of an infinite regress which I find quite sound and convincing. For example, William Craig advances his kalam cosmological argument as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

If you have the time, I would recommend reading through Craig's argument more at http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html. But rather than continue beating this out, I am willing to here concede that the impossibility of an infinite regression may not be readily apparent.

I actually find another powerful cosmological argument comes from the agnostic Naturalist philosopher Paul Davies in his book 'The Mind of God.' He writes: “Plausible world-ensemble [or multiple universe] theories still require a measure of explanation, such as the law-like character of the universes and why there exists a world-ensemble in the first place.” One may avoid beginning-style cosmological arguments, but then there are other types. For example, it seems the physics and laws which govern our universe could have been other than what they are. There seems to be no reason why they necessarily need to be as we experience them and so appears to be the case that they are contingent. But upon what? It seems to me cosmological questions are always going to a constant thorn in the side of Natural positivists.

Kurieuo wrote:I had assumed you had accepted an infinite regression to be an impossibility

No more or less than I assume that God is or is not an exception to that rule.

Kurieuo wrote: I am willing to here concede that the impossibility of an infinite regression may not be readily apparent.

With all due respect (sice you are an administrator ), the only thing you are conceding is that it isn't *obvious* that you are correct. Since we are being civil and polite, I'll make the same concession about the obviousness, or lack there of, that you are incorrect.

The "proof" IS sound reasoning, but there are many assumptions that are made. The conclusion is only valid if the assumptions are valid. The correct conclusions, IMO, are 1) The universe was caused by something that exists outside of the rules that we have assigned the universe, or 2) we have assigned the wrong rules to the universe.

We haven't gotten any further than we were before. I feel as though you whole argument hinges on "of course it's 1, 2 is just silly." As I've said, no sillier than the idea of an invisible super intelligent being who exists beyond these very same rules that we believe reality must follow.

BTW, my first degree is in math. I appreciate the proofs you have offered and, as i've stated earlier, they are sound and logical. So don't assume that it is a lack of understainding of the proofs on my part. I understand them just fine. However, unless you want to tackle the subject of how you can simply assign a quality to one thing that is completely intangible while, at the same time deny that same quality to something else that is, quite probably, not fully understood by us, then we are at an impass.

I am perfectly happy to accept that both scenarios are plausible, and that one makes more sense to you than another, but I will not agree that you have *proven* the existence of a supernatural sentient diety (though "belief" in one is perfectly reasonable).

Kurieuo wrote:There seems to be no reason why they necessarily need to be as we experience them and so appears to be the case that they are contingent. But upon what?

The uncertainty of the answer to your question does not lead to a certain answer. I think someone else on this forum called that "God in the gaps," though their use of the term applied to evolution, I believe.