Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/Submit
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

See the issue with saying that no miracles are needed or never happened is a tricky one.

Can someone explain by demonstrable natural or scientific laws how the big bang came to happen?

All we know is that some fluctuation or movement at the quantum level sparked it. Quantum mechanics/physics is currently hard for people to understand, but it doesn't rule out God. I forget how they demonstrated it, but it makes sense to me.
What if we're a balloon inside heaven?

My point is the issue of definitions.
A miracle, by definition, is an even that is not explainable by natural or scientific laws.

What natural or scientific laws explain the big bang?

None.

We can explain the BB, we just haven't been able to confirm the exact details partly because the tech at this time isn't powerful enough to access that information. To call the big bang a miracle is to call the sun rising up, a miracle.

Everything that is governed by physics, can be explained by consequentiality. The true miracle, in my opinion, is that there exists anything at all.

Neo,
We can explain what about the big bang?
The an existing singularity "exploded" and expand into the beginnings of the universe?
What caused the singularity?
If it was always there, what caused it to "expand" ?

There is no scientific law that states, equivocally:
Singularities will expand under "X" conditions.
or:
Singularities in expansion will cause "x"

And if science can't explain the "whys" of it then, be definition, it is beyond the scientific explanation, ergo...

That is why definitions are tricky.

PaulSacramento wrote:Neo,
We can explain what about the big bang?
The an existing singularity "exploded" and expand into the beginnings of the universe?
What caused the singularity?
If it was always there, what caused it to "expand" ?

There is no scientific law that states, equivocally:
Singularities will expand under "X" conditions.
or:
Singularities in expansion will cause "x"

And if science can't explain the "whys" of it then, be definition, it is beyond the scientific explanation, ergo...

That is why definitions are tricky.

It's a false burden of proof in my opinion. Not everything has to be a law to be science. If that were true, cancer would not exist. It exists because certain cells behave otherwise of their intended purpose. So while they are governed by "laws" of general conventionality, we know that there are generous exceptions to this.

However, in this particular case, it's simpler than that. Singularities may expand under various scenarios because it is not the singularity here that is the question. It is the base mechanic that drives it - Quantum fluctuations and the fundamental nuclear forces. If we can understand that - and we do - then the singularity is simply a consequence. When physicists or media says that all the known laws of physics break down at the singularity they do not mean that physics does not apply anymore and therefore there are no explanations at the level. In fact, we understand how and why it could have happened through QM. We only need more tech to confirm the details.

Now you may say that if it is not observable/repeatable, then is not science. But that is a very basic way to understand everyday general-science, and perhaps that is why it is popular. However, this statement is more accurate when it applies to macro-physics. At the quantum level, what is not observable is another potential reality. It is not the general science, but it is science nonetheless.

That is why I say that the singularity in itself is trivial, it was bound to happen eventually.

Nice little chat going on here. Some things that stick out to me.

Neo said Everything that is governed by physics, can be explained by consequentiality.

Which backs up a non-infinite series of chain events,for every action there is a reaction inwhich there can be no infinite regression.

Also even if the speculation amongst certian scientists is correct about QM it still does not change one-bit the fact for the requirement of an uncaused first cause.But it is still speculation that could be totally wrong even if we build the tech to access the information because there is science that is considered true science built entirely on assumption and speculation.I do tend to trust Physicists over Biologists though,but there is still much speculation in science.Too much for my liking.I prefer to go by evidence myself for truth and not speculation.

neo-x wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Neo,
We can explain what about the big bang?
The an existing singularity "exploded" and expand into the beginnings of the universe?
What caused the singularity?
If it was always there, what caused it to "expand" ?

There is no scientific law that states, equivocally:
Singularities will expand under "X" conditions.
or:
Singularities in expansion will cause "x"

And if science can't explain the "whys" of it then, be definition, it is beyond the scientific explanation, ergo...

That is why definitions are tricky.

It's a false burden of proof in my opinion. Not everything has to be a law to be science. If that were true, cancer would not exist. It exists because certain cells behave otherwise of their intended purpose. So while they are governed by "laws" of general conventionality, we know that there are generous exceptions to this.

However, in this particular case, it's simpler than that. Singularities may expand under various scenarios because it is not the singularity here that is the question. It is the base mechanic that drives it - Quantum fluctuations and the fundamental nuclear forces. If we can understand that - and we do - then the singularity is simply a consequence. When physicists or media says that all the known laws of physics break down at the singularity they do not mean that physics does not apply anymore and therefore there are no explanations at the level. In fact, we understand how and why it could have happened through QM. We only need more tech to confirm the details.

Now you may say that if it is not observable/repeatable, then is not science. But that is a very basic way to understand everyday general-science, and perhaps that is why it is popular. However, this statement is more accurate when it applies to macro-physics. At the quantum level, what is not observable is another potential reality. It is not the general science, but it is science nonetheless.

That is why I say that the singularity in itself is trivial, it was bound to happen eventually.

My point is simply this, by the very definition of the word, the "big bang" was a miracle.
Now, it may be the eventually we will find an explanation for it and in doing so we will revise our view of nature and this is the way of science.

PaulSacramento wrote:

neo-x wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Neo,
We can explain what about the big bang?
The an existing singularity "exploded" and expand into the beginnings of the universe?
What caused the singularity?
If it was always there, what caused it to "expand" ?

There is no scientific law that states, equivocally:
Singularities will expand under "X" conditions.
or:
Singularities in expansion will cause "x"

And if science can't explain the "whys" of it then, be definition, it is beyond the scientific explanation, ergo...

That is why definitions are tricky.

It's a false burden of proof in my opinion. Not everything has to be a law to be science. If that were true, cancer would not exist. It exists because certain cells behave otherwise of their intended purpose. So while they are governed by "laws" of general conventionality, we know that there are generous exceptions to this.

However, in this particular case, it's simpler than that. Singularities may expand under various scenarios because it is not the singularity here that is the question. It is the base mechanic that drives it - Quantum fluctuations and the fundamental nuclear forces. If we can understand that - and we do - then the singularity is simply a consequence. When physicists or media says that all the known laws of physics break down at the singularity they do not mean that physics does not apply anymore and therefore there are no explanations at the level. In fact, we understand how and why it could have happened through QM. We only need more tech to confirm the details.

Now you may say that if it is not observable/repeatable, then is not science. But that is a very basic way to understand everyday general-science, and perhaps that is why it is popular. However, this statement is more accurate when it applies to macro-physics. At the quantum level, what is not observable is another potential reality. It is not the general science, but it is science nonetheless.

That is why I say that the singularity in itself is trivial, it was bound to happen eventually.

My point is simply this, by the very definition of the word, the "big bang" was a miracle.
Now, it may be the eventually we will find an explanation for it and in doing so we will revise our view of nature and this is the way of science.

I don't understand Paul. Why the stress upon semantics over a simplification of the word "science laws" that doesn't change anything? BB can be explained, books have been written over it. Multiple mechanics have been identified which explain the BB. I am not sure why still call it a miracle?

To me when someone says something is a miracle then to me that thing is unexplainable. There is nothing that can be understood. Like walking on water or Balaam's donkey talking or the sun and moon standing still so Israel can fight, these I can't understand how they could have happened or if any science is behind that because I am at an utter loss.

In short - Jesus' resurrection is a Miracle, Paul. The BB can be understood.

Neo, I think you may be confusing what we THINK or Hypothesis about what caused the big bang with what did ( which we don't know).
https://www.space.com/31192-what-trigge ... -bang.html


My point, again, is that we need to be careful using the term "miracle" one way or another since anything that science can't explain is, in theory, a miracle.

Why do my posts not go through sometimes?

PaulSacramento wrote:Neo, I think you may be confusing what we THINK or Hypothesis about what caused the big bang with what did ( which we don't know).
https://www.space.com/31192-what-trigge ... -bang.html


My point, again, is that we need to be careful using the term "miracle" one way or another since anything that science can't explain is, in theory, a miracle.

Yeah, let's not belabour the point but I see what you're saying and agree generally.

I think it is right for us to have confidence in science, it's track record is very good.
It is not perfect of course and we need to remember that opinion and hypothesis is not fact and that consensus doesn't make it correct.
It is because of the "sufficient reason" principle that science exists ( we believe that things can be explained to a sufficiently reasonable point).
In regards to evolution, there is enough sufficient reason to believe that is how life changed to arrive at where we are now.
IS the TOE 100% correct?
Unknown.
Is the TOE 100% complete?
No.
Is there more to discover in regards to the TOE?
Yes.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Why do my posts not go through sometimes?

User error.

Neo: Everything that is governed by physics, can be explained by consequentiality. The true miracle, in my opinion, is that there exists anything at all.

This world and universe turned out exactly as God knew it would when He put it into place. ANY changes of what He made possible or put into place would have changed the outcomes. And He has ALWAYS known ALL outcomes. Astounding things exist, as opposed to nothing - which is all miraculous / wouldn't be possible without what God created, how, when, and their sequence, designs and capabilities. He knew all such things ALWAYS! If He'd wanted it differently, He would have created the possibilities only per parameters for outcomes He ultimately wanted. So, on a certain level, the debate over what is or isn't miraculous is ultimately a rather silly one.

God always planned for man's existence, and before THIS time itself!

2 Timothy 1: "8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, 9 who saved us and called us to[a] a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began ...",

God is sovereign and all-knowing - and so man is no happenstance of unplanned, random things that might have gone another way (in which we would never have existed) - not according to Scripture! Man was planned before time began, according to the Apostle Paul, who was inspired by God, hand-picked by Him, and who was even shown a glimpse of heaven (2 Corinthians 12). This means not only was man planned, but all of the astounding fine tunings (http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/fil ... _part1.pdf) that made human life possible and sustainable, with their many interdependencies and functions, chemically, physically, astronomically, etc. were all PLANNED before time began. So, you're not reading this paragraph by a happenstance of time and chance of a "hands-off" God. As God left NOTHING to chance - which, interestingly, also includes His plan to give man free will.

trulyenlightened wrote: Since people without any religious affiliation represent a mere 16% of the entire global population, it is the other affiliated 84% of psychopaths, schizophrenics, sociopaths, that I would be worried about.

That reminds me of something. Useful worthwhile college professors represent a mere 16% of the nationwide University staff. But it's the other 84% of ivory towered, bubbled, vindictive, left wing, megalomaniacs funded by 1+ trillion in debt I'm worried about.

http://collegedebt.com/

Just an FYI for those who haven't seen this yet.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22879 ... e-time.htm

https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-con ... educed.pdf