Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:

It's ultimately a God of the Gaps argument.

What is ultimately a God of the gaps argument? Meyer's information argument?
Meyer has several explanations defending that this is not a God of gaps argument. Maybe I can find them and link.

Surfing this site will likely answer some of those.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1159

I'll take a closer look. Perhaps my initial impression is off a bit.

Guys, i just jumped in but to add to a few things,

The grand design by Stephen hawking also holds that there is no free will and that all actions come from the laws of physics, while biological and chemical reaction or laws come in as a sub step to the first. (of course he is a physicist, he would say that), This is actually absurd, because it creates a lot of other problems and ends all philosophy, which he also says "is dead".

The goldfish jar paradox certainly makes room for possibilities but can't be confirmed ever - since the whole point is to stay in the jar, same is the case with M-Theory, unless you can travel faster than light and get out of the jar(which one cannot, not now anyways) it is all hypothetical.

And by the way, God of the Gaps can not be applied to all science,the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is what that creates the problem. No matter what they do, according to this principle, science can not go further in Quantum Physics without being uncertain about some things that balance it all out. It is a barrier in itself.

my observations, for what they are worth

And by the way, God of the Gaps can not be applied to all science,the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is what that creates the problem. No matter what they do, according to this principle, science can not go further in Quantum Physics without being uncertain about some things that balance it all out. It is a barrier in itself.

FWIW That's not what Heisenberg says - the principle implies that it is impossible to measure simultaneously both the position and the momentum of an electron or any other particle with any arbitrarily great degree of accuracy or certainty. Said another way, measuring either one will have some effect upon the other.

yes, but that same principle applies to the whole system as well, which means that one cannot assign exact simultaneous values to the position and momentum of a physical system. And it has profound implications upon how predictions can be made for any certain system behavior . It does not say that there are always uncertainties but that there is a limit to which any calculation could be made. In other words the more accurate the position the less accurate the momentum and vice versa and the same applies for energy/time as well.

neo-x wrote:yes, but that same principle applies to the whole system as well, which means that one cannot assign exact simultaneous values to the position and momentum of a physical system. And it has profound implications upon how predictions can be made for any certain system behavior . It does not say that there are always uncertainties but that there is a limit to which any calculation could be made. In other words the more accurate the position the less accurate the momentum and vice versa and the same applies for energy/time as well.

That's pretty much what I said.

lol