Evidence for God from Science

Revolutionary wrote: I think curvature is pretty basic where mass and gravity is concerned, but I don’t think you understand the basics concerning the dynamic or temporal properties by which it has been theorized.

Basics concerning the dynamic or temporal properties by which curvature has been theorized? Please, enlighten me.

Revolutionary wrote: Lets indulge it and accept such a model for a moment and for the sake of argument that there is no outside or beyond it.

This isn’t a static model, we have calculated through redshift that all of the ‘physical’ mass is expanding away in all directions as well as accelerating. By your logic, we have to conclude through curvature that it is either expanding into itself which as a result, brings us back to a point of contracting; or that the curvature itself by which it is ‘bound’ is expanding.
In the first example, it describes a crunch where all mass will once again become the very form by what we are currently observing ‘started’. It does however only demonstrate and solidify a perpetual model that simply pulses with no beginning and no end, for an eternal reference of ‘time’.

Can you give me reference to a scientific theory describing the "perpetual model that simply pulses with no beginning and no end, for an eternal reference of ‘time’"?
Do you claim that universe would be pulsing forever? Based on what do you claim this?

Revolutionary wrote: In the second example the dynamics of gravity by which this curvature is formed begin to degrade through an interpolation in spatial density. Mass is what composes this curvature where gravity itself forms the dimension of ‘space’. This is basic physics, the gravity of two objects is both proportionate to the mass itself as well as the distance between them. In an expanding arena, the dynamics of force by which the curvature itself is bound in form begin to diminish where inevitability takes it's course, and the concept of there being no outside or beyond begins to fail as well.

Why the concept of there being no outside or beyond begins to fail? If I look for example on the Robertson-Walker Metric (http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/RW.html) with k=+1, I do not need concept of outside or beyond. Space-time is desribed by the metric. Period. Where is the 'outside' or 'beyond'? Can you tell me? In infinity? Is there some 'outside' or 'beyond' in infinity? Is something 'beyond' infinity? No.

Revolutionary wrote: There was a time when our earth lacked our dense atmosphere and it was literally pummeled by billions and billions of meteoroids…..
All we have to do is look at our moon to understand this, and then examine the earth’s topography to see the many large scars it still holds.
Now we have quite a brilliant ‘coincidence’ where life is concerned; the atmospheric properties necessary for supporting life, as well as the properties that are contributed to the atmosphere by that life, produce a dense/oxygen rich atmosphere that essentially halts that onslaught of meteoroid impact. When a meteoroid enters the atmosphere, it becomes a meteor by the immense friction heat of compression where our oxygen enables it to burn up well before it impacts. Without such a perfect balance and every event of meteoroid impact leading up to it, life would otherwise be unable to exist.

Now lets examine further back to where the earth was without an atmosphere and obviously devoid of life….. Billions and billions of meteoroids impacted the surface of our planet, and brought with it an immense amount of cosmic/elemental information in material, until our planet was in the perfect form and properly ‘seeded’ in order to start the processes that would bring balance and stasis in order to support life.

So yes, once again I am dumbstruck by the many brilliant and perfect 'coincidences' that manage to support life.

Since you mentioned 'coincidence' I am curious about how probable you find that life as we know it exists. I am trying to understand your worldview, so in your worldview is life something inevitable or just 'coincidence'?

Revolutionary wrote: I will also add something about intellect….. We are scratching upon the surface of potential in what can be achieved…. Look at us chasing our tails round and round for ridiculous trinkets, trashing lives and minds along with our environment, it’s insulting…. If we came together as a focus to address problems and potential hazards (which would be highly rewarding, motivating and inspiring), we could solve anything that we would ever have to face; including taking the necessary precautions towards preventing an asteroid from demolishing us.

I agree that poeple are chasing for ridiculous things, trash lives and minds, environment. It's sad.

Does scratching upon the surface of potential in what can be achieved means that we do not exploit our intellect? I agree that we do not. We could do much better. Some intellectuals could stop being rude, proud, not listening, uncooperative, judgmental, having prejudice. What a fairytale it would be if people were in harmony and working together on understanding how this universe works, how to use our knowledge for good and not for bad.

I hope you do not think Christians do not pursue this goal. Galileo once said: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them."

God himself encourages us to explore.

Job 12:7-10.
7 “But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you;
And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you.
8 “Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you;
And let the fish of the sea declare to you.
9 “Who among all these does not know
That the hand of the Lord has done this,
10 In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
And the breath of all mankind?

Romans 1:19-20.
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Psalms 19:1
1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

Revolutionary wrote: If we can’t understand how to balance our own intellect to match the brilliance and perfection surrounding it; I suppose it’s just another part of the perfection where we don’t deserve to be it’s steward.

Genesis 2:15
15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

Revolutionary wrote: Time will tell.

Yes.

1over137 wrote:

Revolutionary wrote: I think curvature is pretty basic where mass and gravity is concerned, but I don’t think you understand the basics concerning the dynamic or temporal properties by which it has been theorized.

Basics concerning the dynamic or temporal properties by which curvature has been theorized? Please, enlighten me.

Revolutionary wrote: Lets indulge it and accept such a model for a moment and for the sake of argument that there is no outside or beyond it.

This isn’t a static model, we have calculated through redshift that all of the ‘physical’ mass is expanding away in all directions as well as accelerating. By your logic, we have to conclude through curvature that it is either expanding into itself which as a result, brings us back to a point of contracting; or that the curvature itself by which it is ‘bound’ is expanding.
In the first example, it describes a crunch where all mass will once again become the very form by what we are currently observing ‘started’. It does however only demonstrate and solidify a perpetual model that simply pulses with no beginning and no end, for an eternal reference of ‘time’.

Can you give me reference to a scientific theory describing the "perpetual model that simply pulses with no beginning and no end, for an eternal reference of ‘time’"?
Do you claim that universe would be pulsing forever? Based on what do you claim this?

Revolutionary wrote: In the second example the dynamics of gravity by which this curvature is formed begin to degrade through an interpolation in spatial density. Mass is what composes this curvature where gravity itself forms the dimension of ‘space’. This is basic physics, the gravity of two objects is both proportionate to the mass itself as well as the distance between them. In an expanding arena, the dynamics of force by which the curvature itself is bound in form begin to diminish where inevitability takes it's course, and the concept of there being no outside or beyond begins to fail as well.

Why the concept of there being no outside or beyond begins to fail? If I look for example on the Robertson-Walker Metric (http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/RW.html) with k=+1, I do not need concept of outside or beyond. Space-time is desribed by the metric. Period. Where is the 'outside' or 'beyond'? Can you tell me? In infinity? Is there some 'outside' or 'beyond' in infinity? Is something 'beyond' infinity? No.

Revolutionary wrote: There was a time when our earth lacked our dense atmosphere and it was literally pummeled by billions and billions of meteoroids…..
All we have to do is look at our moon to understand this, and then examine the earth’s topography to see the many large scars it still holds.
Now we have quite a brilliant ‘coincidence’ where life is concerned; the atmospheric properties necessary for supporting life, as well as the properties that are contributed to the atmosphere by that life, produce a dense/oxygen rich atmosphere that essentially halts that onslaught of meteoroid impact. When a meteoroid enters the atmosphere, it becomes a meteor by the immense friction heat of compression where our oxygen enables it to burn up well before it impacts. Without such a perfect balance and every event of meteoroid impact leading up to it, life would otherwise be unable to exist.

Now lets examine further back to where the earth was without an atmosphere and obviously devoid of life….. Billions and billions of meteoroids impacted the surface of our planet, and brought with it an immense amount of cosmic/elemental information in material, until our planet was in the perfect form and properly ‘seeded’ in order to start the processes that would bring balance and stasis in order to support life.

So yes, once again I am dumbstruck by the many brilliant and perfect 'coincidences' that manage to support life.

Since you mentioned 'coincidence' I am curious about how probable you find that life as we know it exists. I am trying to understand your worldview, so in your worldview is life something inevitable or just 'coincidence'?

Revolutionary wrote: I will also add something about intellect….. We are scratching upon the surface of potential in what can be achieved…. Look at us chasing our tails round and round for ridiculous trinkets, trashing lives and minds along with our environment, it’s insulting…. If we came together as a focus to address problems and potential hazards (which would be highly rewarding, motivating and inspiring), we could solve anything that we would ever have to face; including taking the necessary precautions towards preventing an asteroid from demolishing us.

I agree that poeple are chasing for ridiculous things, trash lives and minds, environment. It's sad.

Does scratching upon the surface of potential in what can be achieved means that we do not exploit our intellect? I agree that we do not. We could do much better. Some intellectuals could stop being rude, proud, not listening, uncooperative, judgmental, having prejudice. What a fairytale it would be if people were in harmony and working together on understanding how this universe works, how to use our knowledge for good and not for bad.

I hope you do not think Christians do not pursue this goal. Galileo once said: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them."

God himself encourages us to explore.

Job 12:7-10.
7 “But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you;
And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you.
8 “Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you;
And let the fish of the sea declare to you.
9 “Who among all these does not know
That the hand of the Lord has done this,
10 In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
And the breath of all mankind?

Romans 1:19-20.
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Psalms 19:1
1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

Revolutionary wrote: If we can’t understand how to balance our own intellect to match the brilliance and perfection surrounding it; I suppose it’s just another part of the perfection where we don’t deserve to be it’s steward.

Genesis 2:15
15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

Revolutionary wrote: Time will tell.

Yes.

I recall somewhere reading that you have claimed to be a physicist?

What you are describing is a closed ('finite' by specific dimension) universe.... The most elementary dynamic and the very definition of a closed universe is that it must stop expanding at some point in time..... It doesn't just freeze at this 'finite' point where 'poof', gravity just disappears!!! Gravity exists and takes over at this point where this model begins to collapse upon itself..... You have even cited your own example of this!
While the model of a closed universe is finite, what do you suppose happens when all of the mass of this model collapses all the way back upon itself to the same point by which it began?

Hey guys, I know this started back at sept 25 but I want to actually revisit Lunalle's post at #2 and provide my response to it. I'm going to do it bit by bit because I find it one of the more interesting points and it provides a challenge to everyone else.

I guess my expectations of God are higher than yours. What Jesus said (according to most English translations of the Bible) is not what I'd expect a God to say.

First off, I'm tempted to say that Lunalle's expectations of God seems like it would be one where the God in question is maximally great in every single way (A perfect God if you will). Thats my expectation, too.
What Jesus said according to the Bible not being what you expect God to say is begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

In any case it prompted this next:

Lunalle wrote:I'm tempted to just reject your question, First of all, because you didn't define God. There are hundreds of thousands of gods, and thousands of variants of God.

This still is begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

Lunalle wrote:That makes it nearly impossible to properly answer the question, but I'll try.

It doesn't. You have an expectation of what God would say, its ok to have expectations. Its actually not impossible to answer the question. I'll go ahead and tell you what is impossible. What ACTUALLY IS impossible is when you expect God to be impossible and do impossible "things". In otherwords, you can have expectations, but recognize that your expectations are actually not a fundamental part of reality.

Lunalle wrote:My assumption of the properties of God, which form the basis of my answer:
1) God is all knowing.

Sure. That checks out.

Lunalle wrote: 2) God is all powerful.

Sure. That also checks out.

Lunalle wrote: 3) God cares what I think.

This depends on what you mean by "cares" and it also depends on what you "think".

Lunalle wrote: 4) God supplies me with knowledge.

Wow, you are DEAD ON! I agree with you, God absolutely does provide you with SOME knowledge. God however, cannot provide you with misinformation or disinformation because that would make him a LIAR.

Lunalle wrote: 5) God wants me to believe he exists.

No, God does not want you to believe he exists. You already know he exists (more on that later). According to Christianity, God wants you to believe that he loves you and wants to have a relationship with you. It however it up TO US to respond to the gospel.

Lunalle wrote: 6) God wants me to live my life in accordance to the knowledge he supplies to me.

Sure, if that knowledge is pursued so that we can know God in a much more personal way. At that point, I would agree.

I would add these 4 characteristics to God

7) God's love is perfect
8 ) God's judgement is perfect
9) God is THE good
10) God is THE truth

Lunalle wrote:Another problem I have with your question, is I expect God wouldn't say anything.

So, you expect God to be a mute? That would make God an imperfect God. Thats a pretty low expectation. So much for your expectations being higher then the Christian's.

Lunalle wrote:Language is a very crude tool, and I'd expect better of him, based on the first two points.

Language is in fact the most useful means of communication. I speak english, spanish, and japanese. All are very useful. How do you expect better based on your first two points?

God uses language as a means of communication
Therefore, God is not all knowing and/or all powerful

This is a non sequitur - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) -

Lunalle wrote:I don't know what method of communication God would use, although I expect it to be along the lines of direct mind/brain manipulation.

This is an argument from ignorance, first off. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance -
Second, you need to clarify what you mean by "direct mind/brain manipulation". Sounds like a false dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma), but I will give the benefit of the doubt and allow you to support such a claim.

Lunalle wrote:I'd also like to nip the free will argument in the bud before it starts.

Not sure, what this means.

Lunalle wrote:Increasing knowledge, does not negate free will. If increasing knowledge negated free will, God must not have any free will, because he has all knowledge.

This is truly a strange argument and claim in regards to free will. I have no idea what this is claiming. Can someone clarify?

Lunalle wrote:God knows exactly what it would take for me to change my beliefs (based on point 1), and he'd do whatever it took. (based on points 2 and 6).

Sure, but on the other hand because he has all knowledge (as you indicated by point 1). If nothing would change your beliefs then he would not "do whatever it took". Especially if it is without our consent.
If God would "do whatever it took" in order for me to change my beliefs or stance on him, then I would call him a "mind rapist" and "free will rapist" and he would not be a perfect God worthy to have a relationship with. If God did "do whatever it takes" then it would contradict points 7. 8. and 9 that I've added there.

Lunalle wrote:God would not judge us, but improve us.

No, God absolutely has to be a God of justice and his judgement must be perfect. According to Christianity, God does in fact improve us from our fallen state, but it is up to us to allow us to be improved upon. We must consent, otherwise we can call God a "rapist" which would contradict points 7, 8, and 9 that I have added.

Revolutionary wrote:I recall somewhere reading that you have claimed to be a physicist?

What you are describing is a closed ('finite' by specific dimension) universe.... The most elementary dynamic and the very definition of a closed universe is that it must stop expanding at some point in time..... It doesn't just freeze at this 'finite' point where 'poof', gravity just disappears!!! Gravity exists and takes over at this point where this model begins to collapse upon itself..... You have even cited your own example of this!
While the model of a closed universe is finite, what do you suppose happens when all of the mass of this model collapses all the way back upon itself to the same point by which it began?

I was trained as theoretical physicist specialized in elementary particle physics. Now am software developer in company dealing with mobile technologies.

I know that closed universe is to stop expanding at some point in time. What I suppose happens after collapse? I do not know what will happen. But am curious: What are current theories and what do they propose? I know there is cyclic model from Turok and Steinhardt. But there are other models which I will check. I need to update myself on this.

1over137 wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:I recall somewhere reading that you have claimed to be a physicist?

What you are describing is a closed ('finite' by specific dimension) universe.... The most elementary dynamic and the very definition of a closed universe is that it must stop expanding at some point in time..... It doesn't just freeze at this 'finite' point where 'poof', gravity just disappears!!! Gravity exists and takes over at this point where this model begins to collapse upon itself..... You have even cited your own example of this!
While the model of a closed universe is finite, what do you suppose happens when all of the mass of this model collapses all the way back upon itself to the same point by which it began?

I was trained as theoretical physicist specialized in elementary particle physics. Now am software developer in company dealing with mobile technologies.

I know that closed universe is to stop expanding at some point in time. What I suppose happens after collapse?

What is it expanding in too, and what is it collapsing from?

1over137 wrote:I do not know what will happen. But am curious: What are current theories and what do they propose? I know there is cyclic model from Turok and Steinhardt. But there are other models which I will check. I need to update myself on this.

In an arena where mass defines space and there is no outside of such a defined point, how would entropy be possible?
In the very simple and basic conservation of energy, it requires dissipation; therefore, the only possible answer as there is no dissipation, is that it is not possible.
Without entropy, the mass of that point of collapse will be identical in density and also heat/energy/excitability as the point of the original big bang..... How then do we even begin to conclude a different outcome?

Revolutionary wrote:What is it expanding in too, and what is it collapsing from?

This is indeed an interesting question, I think there could be many possible answers, your infinite void is a possibility or God could be another. The one that I propose is simply nothing and when I say nothing I mean nothing, no quantum fluctuations, no space, no time, no void. When I think about I see it like this, inside our universe is existence outside the universe is non-existence, to me it is an absurd question because there is nothing, if you somehow managed to get outside the universe you would cease to exist because there is no existence out there. To me the universe is expanding but it isn't expanding into anything because there isn't anything beyond it. I guess the next question is, how can something expand into nothing, that I do not know but it is indeed interesting.

The problem I think is experiential, I and others here have experienced God in our lives and we know with every fibre of our being that he exists, these experiences are very real and can not be discarded easily. So when I look at the universe and theorise about it I will always have the presupposition of God making it.

When I first came to God it was on purely intellectual and emotional grounds, I have moved beyond that now and have had experience of God in my life in a very personal way. It's funny when I look back now, at the start I came to God on my terms but that changed fairly quickly and now it is on his terms, it is very humbling when he takes control.

Experience and faith in my book counts for a lot, because really that's all we have.

I am looking forward to reading Hana's reply as she is the smartest woman I know, don't tell my wife that. Also I find your posts very thought provoking.

Peace brother.

Try look at these:

What is the universe expanding into?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=274

What is entropy
http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html
With stretching universe energy got diluted
http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/ce ... /bang.html
http://space.about.com/od/astronomyspac ... ineuni.htm
Early universe was in disordered state
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=509650

In case of further questions, let me know.

(Sorry Dan if I dissapointed you by 'only' posting links)