Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:The latest discoveries in astrophysics point to very strong evidence towards a beginning a finite time ago. This is irrespective of the number and nature of these universes, whether it be from a multi-verse, bouncing, oscillating, or whatever. No matter how far back we go, we reach a point that for any universe capable of hosting a set of laws, any kind of laws capable of hosting life, any kind of life, this universe-producing thing must be on average expanding. And if it has an average expansion greater than zero, it must have a beginning. That's the sole criterion, average expansion > 0, that's it.

Not exactly. That's slightly mathematically simplistic. The latest discoveries in astrophysics, as it happens, demonstrate a certain non-uniformity in the background radiation which some physicists explain as a trace of a previous universe, whose information was not completely destroyed in the big crunch, or evidence that our universe bubbled out of an immense uber-universe, of unknown, possibly infinite, duration. As for the average expansion being greater than zero, that does not mean that it must once have been zero, only that it must once have been smaller. The series 10,10,10,10,10,10,20 has "an average expansion greater than zero" even if the number of 10s is infinite. I have to say that the infinite universe is not one I find intellectually satisfying, but that is a philosophical position, not a mathematical one.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Audie wrote:Is anyone who says they KNOW where it came from telling the truth?

Probably not, but then, is anyone who says they KNOW that nobody knows telling the truth either?

"Science doesn't do truth."

-Audie, aka, Min, aka Chinese Cowgirl

Religion pretends to.

Careful Audie! You're veering off course, into that dangerous religion/metaphysics area again. You had better get your swimmies on first.

hughfarey wrote:

Byblos wrote:The latest discoveries in astrophysics point to very strong evidence towards a beginning a finite time ago. This is irrespective of the number and nature of these universes, whether it be from a multi-verse, bouncing, oscillating, or whatever. No matter how far back we go, we reach a point that for any universe capable of hosting a set of laws, any kind of laws capable of hosting life, any kind of life, this universe-producing thing must be on average expanding. And if it has an average expansion greater than zero, it must have a beginning. That's the sole criterion, average expansion > 0, that's it.

Not exactly. That's slightly mathematically simplistic. The latest discoveries in astrophysics, as it happens, demonstrate a certain non-uniformity in the background radiation which some physicists explain as a trace of a previous universe, whose information was not completely destroyed in the big crunch, or evidence that our universe bubbled out of an immense uber-universe, of unknown, possibly infinite, duration. As for the average expansion being greater than zero, that does not mean that it must once have been zero, only that it must once have been smaller. The series 10,10,10,10,10,10,20 has "an average expansion greater than zero" even if the number of 10s is infinite. I have to say that the infinite universe is not one I find intellectually satisfying, but that is a philosophical position, not a mathematical one.

Yes exactly and the math is anything but simplistic (unless you want to posit the math behind the BVG theorem is simplistic). And it makes no difference whatever how near zero the average rate of inflation is. So long as it is greater than 0 it is considered inflationary. And according to the BVG theorem if it is inflationary then it must be geodesically incomplete (i.e. cannot be past eternal). The theorem is applicable even to the uber-verse since if it is capable of producing inflationary universes then it also must be inflationary. There simply is no escaping it.

hughfarey wrote:

Byblos wrote:The latest discoveries in astrophysics point to very strong evidence towards a beginning a finite time ago. This is irrespective of the number and nature of these universes, whether it be from a multi-verse, bouncing, oscillating, or whatever. No matter how far back we go, we reach a point that for any universe capable of hosting a set of laws, any kind of laws capable of hosting life, any kind of life, this universe-producing thing must be on average expanding. And if it has an average expansion greater than zero, it must have a beginning. That's the sole criterion, average expansion > 0, that's it.

Not exactly. That's slightly mathematically simplistic. The latest discoveries in astrophysics, as it happens, demonstrate a certain non-uniformity in the background radiation which some physicists explain as a trace of a previous universe, whose information was not completely destroyed in the big crunch, or evidence that our universe bubbled out of an immense uber-universe, of unknown, possibly infinite, duration. As for the average expansion being greater than zero, that does not mean that it must once have been zero, only that it must once have been smaller. The series 10,10,10,10,10,10,20 has "an average expansion greater than zero" even if the number of 10s is infinite. I have to say that the infinite universe is not one I find intellectually satisfying, but that is a philosophical position, not a mathematical one.

You're kidding, right Hugh?

An expansion rate greater than zero has to mean it can't be infinite.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Audie wrote:Is anyone who says they KNOW where it came from telling the truth?

Probably not, but then, is anyone who says they KNOW that nobody knows telling the truth either?

"Science doesn't do truth."

-Audie, aka, Min, aka Chinese Cowgirl

Religion pretends to.

Careful Audie! You're veering off course, into that dangerous religion/metaphysics area again. You had better get your swimmies on first.

Nah. I will let you seekers go boldly forth where nobody can actually do.

Last I knew you guys had still not worked out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Truth? Truth is, half* of you guys still think that seashells atop Everest
mean the "flood" got that high and none of your metaphilosophizing seems to be able to cope with that either.

*its a "Biblical" number ok, as accurate, you know, as it needs to be.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Probably not, but then, is anyone who says they KNOW that nobody knows telling the truth either?

"Science doesn't do truth."

-Audie, aka, Min, aka Chinese Cowgirl

Religion pretends to.

Careful Audie! You're veering off course, into that dangerous religion/metaphysics area again. You had better get your swimmies on first.

Nah. I will let you seekers go boldly forth where nobody can actually do.

Last I knew you guys had still not worked out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Truth? Truth is, half* of you guys still think that seashells atop Everest
mean the "flood" got that high and none of your metaphilosophizing seems to be able to cope with that either.

*its a "Biblical" number ok, as accurate, you know, as it needs to be.

What does that even have anything to do with the discussion?

Byblos wrote:Yes exactly and the math is anything but simplistic (unless you want to posit the math behind the BVG theorem is simplistic). And it makes no difference whatever how near zero the average rate of inflation is. So long as it is greater than 0 it is considered inflationary. And according to the BVG theorem if it is inflationary then it must be geodesically incomplete (i.e. cannot be past eternal). The theorem is applicable even to the uber-verse since if it is capable of producing inflationary universes then it also must be inflationary. There simply is no escaping it.

Not quite. You miss one crucial "but", which is "provided only that the averaged expansion condition H > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics." As I show in my example to Rick, below, an expanding universe per se need not be extrapolated back to zero size, nor does it necessarily have to have a beginning. The BVG theorem allows for this, but rejects it on philosophical, not mathematical, grounds.

RickD wrote:You're kidding, right Hugh? An expansion rate greater than zero has to mean it can't be infinite.

No. Read my example. The "average expansion rate" of the following sequence 10,10,10,10,10,20 is 2. i.e, there is an average increment of 2 between each of the datapoints. If the sequence were extended backwards to 10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,20, the average expansion rate would be 1. As the series extended backwards more and more, even to infinity, the average expansion rate would get less and less, but it would never reach zero. Thus not only does an expanding universe not demand a beginning, it doesn't even demand that it was ever zero in size.

hughfarey wrote:

RickD wrote:You're kidding, right Hugh? An expansion rate greater than zero has to mean it can't be infinite.

No. Read my example. The "average expansion rate" of the following sequence 10,10,10,10,10,20 is 2. i.e, there is an average increment of 2 between each of the datapoints. If the sequence were extended backwards to 10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,20, the average expansion rate would be 1. As the series extended backwards more and more, even to infinity, the average expansion rate would get less and less, but it would never reach zero. Thus not only does an expanding universe not demand a beginning, it doesn't even demand that it was ever zero in size.

But who said anything about it (inflationary average) being exactly zero? That's not what I contend nor is it what the BVG theorem shows. It says absolutely nothing about the condition at zero. If anything, it says any inflationary model cannot be past eternal. Period.

Sorry, my edit overlapped your comment. As I said, the BVG theorem is contingent on a continuous expansion. The math works equally well for a past eternal, non inflationary period, followed by an inflationary period.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: "Science doesn't do truth."

-Audie, aka, Min, aka Chinese Cowgirl

Religion pretends to.

Careful Audie! You're veering off course, into that dangerous religion/metaphysics area again. You had better get your swimmies on first.

Nah. I will let you seekers go boldly forth where nobody can actually do.

Last I knew you guys had still not worked out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Truth? Truth is, half* of you guys still think that seashells atop Everest
mean the "flood" got that high and none of your metaphilosophizing seems to be able to cope with that either.

*its a "Biblical" number ok, as accurate, you know, as it needs to be.

What does that even have anything to do with the discussion?

Track the conversation already. Some here seem to think the "Know" the "Truth" about where the universe came from.

Leaves little to discuss, does it? Other than to point out it is an absurd claim.

hughfarey wrote:Sorry, my edit overlapped your comment. As I said, the BVG theorem is contingent on a continuous expansion.

You have that backwards. The BVG theorem says nothing about continuous expansion, only that if expansion exists at all then that is evidence of non-eternality in the past (not in the future).

hughfarey wrote:The math works equally well for a past eternal, non inflationary period, followed by an inflationary period.

Of course the math conceptually works. I don't even have an issue with positing an eternal steady state followed by an inflationary period. Except an eternal steady state does not, cannot on its own, arbitrarily give rise to inflation.

Audie wrote: Track the conversation already. Some here seem to think the "Know" the "Truth" about where the universe came from.

Leaves little to discuss, does it? Other than to point out it is an absurd claim.

No one (that I'm aware of) is claiming they "know" where the universe came from. Our claims, as theists, are two separate, entirely independent tracks. If truth is claimed then proofs (and yes, they are proofs) are purely of the metaphysical kind that rely on pure logic and reason. If evidence is claimed (scientific or otherwise) then all we can hope for is to look at the data and form an opinion as to where the preponderance of the evidence is leading but there can never be any proof. I am pursuing the latter track at this stage.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote: Track the conversation already. Some here seem to think the "Know" the "Truth" about where the universe came from.

Leaves little to discuss, does it? Other than to point out it is an absurd claim.

No one (that I'm aware of) is claiming they "know" where the universe came from. Our claims, as theists, are two separate, entirely independent tracks. If truth is claimed then proofs (and yes, they are proofs) are purely of the metaphysical kind that rely on pure logic and reason. If evidence is claimed (scientific or otherwise) then all we can hope for is to look at the data and form an opinion as to where the preponderance of the evidence is leading but there can never be any proof. I am pursuing the latter track at this stage.

Thanks for a good post. Makes total sense.
It came up in another thread. Had kind of a pointless run-in with Phil over it.

Byblos wrote:Of course the math conceptually works. I don't even have an issue with positing an eternal steady state followed by an inflationary period. Except an eternal steady state does not, cannot on its own, arbitrarily give rise to inflation.

Probably true, depending on your definition of eternal. If time is a measure of change, then the term "eternal steady state" might have no meaning.

If we are going based on the evidence? The evidence points to God being the cause based on the big bang that is peer reviewed science.All other Holy books are wrong,but the Holy Bible is true based on Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." All of these other ideas that have been brought up are not peer reviewed science and so although interesting cannot be considered evidence.Only the Holy Bible is right so we can say that the evidence points to the God of the bible.Therefore,it is not just "God did it" being proposed without merit or evidence,the evidence points to the God of the bible doing it.

YHWH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdRbywMH7kw