Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

neo-x wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think we need to define the terms we are using better gentlemen.
Like when a scientist says theory and a layperson says theory ( and means hypothesis).

That said, can anyone explain why the singularity lead to the expansion ( or even Why it expanded instead of contracting) any why it lead to the universe instead, for example, something else?

Quantum fluctuations. You can look it up for more details, there are other models as well.

EDIT:
I think for some the non-scientific one is better as it suits their beliefs better. Or because they haven't looked at the evidence or think that the evidence is arbitrary or inconclusive.

What I don't understand is why poeple won't accept that when you talk about science you can't use layman's terms to define things that are defined in science otherwise and then say there is no evidence or it's just a (layman's) theory?

I don't think you understood my question:
Why did those quantum fluctuations lead to expansion and not contraction? why did they happen in the first place?

Ok, so there are different hypothesis. One, we know for certain that even in vacum, at the quantum level, there are virtual particles, powered by the strong nuclear force. They appear and dissapear in the quantum field randomly. The fluctations of these particles is what triggered the singularity to expand in the first place. The basic idea here is that the forces within the quantum field became repulsive within the singularity, like two magnets with opposing polraities would, and thus the expansion happened.

The other lead hypothesis is that its a bounce-crunch scenario, so the universe expands because of these fluctuations and at a later date contracts to a pre singulairty state once again, and then again expands - thus cranking out cyclic universes. So our universe will eventually contract like we see in stars e.g, falling back into their ownselves and forming black holes - thus when our universe does go back in a crunch to a singularity like state , it will contain all the mass in the universe present today and thus another universe will eventually spring out of it again because of quantum fluctuations and replusive forces that leads to expansion. Please note that it is theorized that such universes will have different physical laws and constraints and will not really behave like its predecessor universe.

These are the hypothesis and they solve a lot of problems we see and evidence exists for a lot of what they say but is not at the moment enough to concretely and definitively say for sure which one is true, plus there are a couple of other models as well. However, the above two hypothesis also have problems present in both scenarios that need to be solved. It is fascinating nonetheless, as we learn more abot the particles and forces as they make up our universe.

IGWS it's an extremely watered down version of the two hypothesis.

Neo,
You are not grasping this so, let me put it this way, like I mentioned before:

Why is it when you strike a match you get fire instead of ice?

This is the CORE that allows science to exist.

Well if I am not getting it. Maybe instead of riddles, just share your point.
Edit:
I don't understand. You asked me why it expanded and I told you specifically why it did. What is there that didn't cover your question?

Reading back I see you asked why did it happen the first time but I don't see how this helps you understand more. It's like asking what's south of the south pole. We don't know if ours is the first time or a billionth one or inifinite one. No one knows that.

Byblos wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Justhuman wrote:Well, I see we do not get along, so indeed...

Lol, I figured as much. I said nothing disrespectful but oh well ... Grateful I didn't waste more of my time.

Lol? I figured as much? Was that your intention?

I've checked this threat for contributions of you, but it was 0. If you disagree with me, or want to correct me that's fine, so either stay out of it or make a usefull contribution.
It's for guys like you I quit forums. They take away the 'charm' of it.

Yet more unsubstantiated claims and ad homonyms. Why are you deflecting? I was very specific in my posts, yet you ignored the subject matter and chose sarcasm instead. Hey you can stay if you want, that's entirely up to you and the mods. But if you think I won't call you out on your inconsistencies and contradictions every chance I get you are sadly mistaken. Engage in the subject matter or be called on it. That is also a choice you have.

Before the mods ban me from here, I must do a lot more bad writing...

Besides that, I'm truly sorry if I didn't understand something which I should have understood by now by your opinion. I've read back the posts in which you responded, but couldn't find much I missed or misinterpreted. There are many posts from different members, noone here can react to all the details/questions/opinions/statements/suggestions from everyone. There's bound to be several items that people asked or sugested which get missed.

I'm trying to understand, but often experience a kind of 'lock' in my thought-patterns. I wonder if other people experience that too.
It can be hard to cross that specific boundary which prevends one from understanding the opposite of what one thinks is 'the truth'. As there indeed can be only one truth. In an earlier post I wrote about different truths and 'a zillion shades of colors': http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 25#p223330
You state I implicated that there might be shades ot truth, but I didn't imply that.
In another post you hinted that I stated that Kurieo might have stated something? http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 40#p226064
I never anywhere stated that Kurieuo said that "God knows His own future".
That are misinterpretation from you. Which might give you the impression that much I write is nonsense.

Did you know that in Dutch both 'evidence' and 'proof' translate to the same word? ('Bewijs'). I realise I've somtimes misused evidence and proof, stupid mistake ofcourse.

Regarding my 'pondering' about God knowing His own future, it's difficult to write down my philosophical thoughts and feelings in one coherent way. So, I'm curious where you (or anyone else) can tell me what/where/when it becomes jibberish:

• God knows all. When He created our universe, earth and humans, He knew exactly how things would progress and how it will ultimately end.
  There is only one future for us, the one that God 'chose'. He can't/wont deviate from that because if He would He wouldn't have foreseen it correctly. He doesn't need to interfere or adjust anything, for it all is predetermined when He created all.

And also:

• Does He, can He, besides the one 'passing of events' we are currently in, know also all the alternate-futures? Besides the single one 'future' that God chose there is an infinite amount of alternate-futures. It seems 'impossible' to know all these, for it would take an eternity to evaluate them all. So, did God 'pick' the only right one, or did He just pick one that works?

And further:

• Does God also know what He is going to do next Himself? If He knows all then that must be the case. But if even Gods future is predetermined by His own pre-knowledge, where is the free will in this? To bring it on topic again.

That confuses me too. But, for the last part, if God is infinite or all powerful, then I can see free will happening while God knows His future.

Justhuman wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Justhuman wrote:Well, I see we do not get along, so indeed...

Lol, I figured as much. I said nothing disrespectful but oh well ... Grateful I didn't waste more of my time.

Lol? I figured as much? Was that your intention?

I've checked this threat for contributions of you, but it was 0. If you disagree with me, or want to correct me that's fine, so either stay out of it or make a usefull contribution.
It's for guys like you I quit forums. They take away the 'charm' of it.

Yet more unsubstantiated claims and ad homonyms. Why are you deflecting? I was very specific in my posts, yet you ignored the subject matter and chose sarcasm instead. Hey you can stay if you want, that's entirely up to you and the mods. But if you think I won't call you out on your inconsistencies and contradictions every chance I get you are sadly mistaken. Engage in the subject matter or be called on it. That is also a choice you have.

Before the mods ban me from here, I must do a lot more bad writing...

Besides that, I'm truly sorry if I didn't understand something which I should have understood by now by your opinion. I've read back the posts in which you responded, but couldn't find much I missed or misinterpreted. There are many posts from different members, noone here can react to all the details/questions/opinions/statements/suggestions from everyone. There's bound to be several items that people asked or sugested which get missed.

I'm trying to understand, but often experience a kind of 'lock' in my thought-patterns. I wonder if other people experience that too.
It can be hard to cross that specific boundary which prevends one from understanding the opposite of what one thinks is 'the truth'. As there indeed can be only one truth. In an earlier post I wrote about different truths and 'a zillion shades of colors': http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 25#p223330
You state I implicated that there might be shades ot truth, but I didn't imply that.
In another post you hinted that I stated that Kurieo might have stated something? http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 40#p226064
I never anywhere stated that Kurieuo said that "God knows His own future".
That are misinterpretation from you. Which might give you the impression that much I write is nonsense.

Did you know that in Dutch both 'evidence' and 'proof' translate to the same word? ('Bewijs'). I realise I've somtimes misused evidence and proof, stupid mistake ofcourse.

Regarding my 'pondering' about God knowing His own future, it's difficult to write down my philosophical thoughts and feelings in one coherent way. So, I'm curious where you (or anyone else) can tell me what/where/when it becomes jibberish:

• God knows all. When He created our universe, earth and humans, He knew exactly how things would progress and how it will ultimately end.
  There is only one future for us, the one that God 'chose'. He can't/wont deviate from that because if He would He wouldn't have foreseen it correctly. He doesn't need to interfere or adjust anything, for it all is predetermined when He created all.

And also:

• Does He, can He, besides the one 'passing of events' we are currently in, know also all the alternate-futures? Besides the single one 'future' that God chose there is an infinite amount of alternate-futures. It seems 'impossible' to know all these, for it would take an eternity to evaluate them all. So, did God 'pick' the only right one, or did He just pick one that works?

And further:

• Does God also know what He is going to do next Himself? If He knows all then that must be the case. But if even Gods future is predetermined by His own pre-knowledge, where is the free will in this? To bring it on topic again.

God doesn't know his future because God has no future...God has no past, God is. And he is not bound in time, so whenever you think try thinking that way, see what conclusions you draw from there.

neo-x wrote:God doesn't know his future because God has no future...God has no past, God is. And he is not bound in time, so whenever you think try thinking that way, see what conclusions you draw from there.

Ok, that's an answer.
But I do not mean our kind of 'future'. Clearly our 'future' cannot be used for a God-being. I only used it when referencing to our own physical universe, and avoided that word when referencing to Him in the 'And further' part.
God being outside our spacetime, doesn't mean He has no 'future'. His 'future' would be an 'outofspacetime future', as to say.

neo-x wrote:Well if I am not getting it. Maybe instead of riddles, just share your point.
Edit:
I don't understand. You asked me why it expanded and I told you specifically why it did. What is there that didn't cover your question?

Reading back I see you asked why did it happen the first time but I don't see how this helps you understand more. It's like asking what's south of the south pole. We don't know if ours is the first time or a billionth one or inifinite one. No one knows that.

To understand why God MUST exist we need to grasp why science exits and that is because things in this universe are "goal oriented" and by that I mean that striking a match "creates" fire instead of ice, that water turns into ice at zub zero temperatures instead of turning into flowers.
Science can predict things because of this.
There are causes and there are effects, things move/change because of what they are ( actuality) and what they have potential to be (potentiality) and these are 100% proven facts and it is so because of...

Justhuman wrote:

neo-x wrote:God doesn't know his future because God has no future...God has no past, God is. And he is not bound in time, so whenever you think try thinking that way, see what conclusions you draw from there.

Ok, that's an answer.
But I do not mean our kind of 'future'. Clearly our 'future' cannot be used for a God-being. I only used it when referencing to our own physical universe, and avoided that word when referencing to Him in the 'And further' part.
God being outside our spacetime, doesn't mean He has no 'future'. His 'future' would be an 'outofspacetime future', as to say.

And that's my point when you say future it implies space-time and thus time. No matter how far back you take this, we can't say God doesn't have our future but he must have some. Try understanding it from relativity, we exist in a universe where things like, space and time are relative to each other but God doesn't live in any of those, nor is he is bound by those because to be dependent on something will be unnatural to God and is mutually exclusive to being God himself. God is just "is". He can't react to an environment like us because he doesn't live by its laws. Even the thought of God having a future is only our relative way of thinking what a timeless being would be doing because we understand everything by time or in other terms, change. Time is, in fact, a way of measuring change, be that any. But God doesn't change and this is precisely why time doesn't apply, past or future doesn't apply. God is existence himself, he just is.

But if nothing ever changes, ever, then time is just a static thing. And in such a case there is no time because nothing ever changed. The quantum fluctuations never fluctuated thus the BB never happened, thus space never formed and thus time never happened.

If you can imagine that, I think you will see my pov.
Cheers.

PaulSacramento wrote:

neo-x wrote:Well if I am not getting it. Maybe instead of riddles, just share your point.
Edit:
I don't understand. You asked me why it expanded and I told you specifically why it did. What is there that didn't cover your question?

Reading back I see you asked why did it happen the first time but I don't see how this helps you understand more. It's like asking what's south of the south pole. We don't know if ours is the first time or a billionth one or inifinite one. No one knows that.

To understand why God MUST exist we need to grasp why science exits and that is because things in this universe are "goal oriented" and by that I mean that striking a match "creates" fire instead of ice, that water turns into ice at zub zero temperatures instead of turning into flowers.
Science can predict things because of this.
There are causes and there are effects, things move/change because of what they are ( actuality) and what they have potential to be (potentiality) and these are 100% proven facts and it is so because of...

I get your point. I wouldn't use the term goal oriented rather, things react. In a different universe, the same could have different results or no results at all.

To ponder the point a little further, at the quantum level, our standard physics and its models fail. In fact, the uncertainty principle says that what you see in a moment is the outcome of your observation, and had you not observed, it would be a different outcome or a different reality. Reality, thus, is truly forked and what is real only depends on what you observe.

neo-x wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

neo-x wrote:Well if I am not getting it. Maybe instead of riddles, just share your point.
Edit:
I don't understand. You asked me why it expanded and I told you specifically why it did. What is there that didn't cover your question?

Reading back I see you asked why did it happen the first time but I don't see how this helps you understand more. It's like asking what's south of the south pole. We don't know if ours is the first time or a billionth one or inifinite one. No one knows that.

To understand why God MUST exist we need to grasp why science exits and that is because things in this universe are "goal oriented" and by that I mean that striking a match "creates" fire instead of ice, that water turns into ice at zub zero temperatures instead of turning into flowers.
Science can predict things because of this.
There are causes and there are effects, things move/change because of what they are ( actuality) and what they have potential to be (potentiality) and these are 100% proven facts and it is so because of...

I get your point. I wouldn't use the term goal oriented rather, things react. In a different universe, the same could have different results or no results at all.

To ponder the point a little further, at the quantum level, our standard physics and its models fail. In fact, the uncertainty principle says that what you see in a moment is the outcome of your observation, and had you not observed, it would be a different outcome or a different reality. Reality, thus, is truly forked and what is real only depends on what you observe.

Things react, yes, BUT why does water turn to ice at sub-zero temperature rather than turn to flowers or fire?
You can't simply say that "things react" because science shows us that these things are:
Predictable, Verifiable, Observable, and Falsifiable and that would only be the case if there was some "goal orientedness".
For lack of a better word.
The quantum level is NOT applicable here UNLESS at the quantum level ( keeping with the theme) water would turn into something else rather than ice at sub zero temperatures.
It's not that water would turn to ice in a different way or under different circumstances but turn into something else other than ice.

PaulSacramento wrote:

neo-x wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

neo-x wrote:Well if I am not getting it. Maybe instead of riddles, just share your point.
Edit:
I don't understand. You asked me why it expanded and I told you specifically why it did. What is there that didn't cover your question?

Reading back I see you asked why did it happen the first time but I don't see how this helps you understand more. It's like asking what's south of the south pole. We don't know if ours is the first time or a billionth one or inifinite one. No one knows that.

To understand why God MUST exist we need to grasp why science exits and that is because things in this universe are "goal oriented" and by that I mean that striking a match "creates" fire instead of ice, that water turns into ice at zub zero temperatures instead of turning into flowers.
Science can predict things because of this.
There are causes and there are effects, things move/change because of what they are ( actuality) and what they have potential to be (potentiality) and these are 100% proven facts and it is so because of...

I get your point. I wouldn't use the term goal oriented rather, things react. In a different universe, the same could have different results or no results at all.

To ponder the point a little further, at the quantum level, our standard physics and its models fail. In fact, the uncertainty principle says that what you see in a moment is the outcome of your observation, and had you not observed, it would be a different outcome or a different reality. Reality, thus, is truly forked and what is real only depends on what you observe.

Things react, yes, BUT why does water turn to ice at sub-zero temperature rather than turn to flowers or fire?
You can't simply say that "things react" because science shows us that these things are:
Predictable, Verifiable, Observable, and Falsifiable and that would only be the case if there was some "goal orientedness".
For lack of a better word.
The quantum level is NOT applicable here UNLESS at the quantum level ( keeping with the theme) water would turn into something else rather than ice at sub zero temperatures.
It's not that water would turn to ice in a different way or under different circumstances but turn into something else other than ice.

And I agree, the quantum isn't applicable at this level but when it comes to the start of the universe and singularity, that is where it applies.

And yes most of the laws we see are Predictable, Verifiable, Observable, and Falsifiable, but I hope you read back you can see I was kind of referring to it when I said that this universe behaves this way because of how reality gets forked at the quantum level. It doesn't necessarily they are "goal oriented", its just how things react in this reality. You need to take into account the unpredictability and randomness at the quantum level and what it would entail, even in a theoratical context.

However that being said, I agree with your overall point above cause and effect, though perhaps we disagree on definitions or with some of the limits of what we are discussing.

Definitions are always a pain because science uses words differently than "lay speak".
That said, the understanding that this universe ( the only one that matters to us and the only one we KNOW as a FACT exists) does indeed show evidence and proof that there are things that ARE oriented to a specific end result as opposed to any other.
There are constants in the universe and science COULD NOT work otherwise.
What this leads us to is actuality ( what a things is) and potentiality ( what a thing can become), which leads us to what causes something to become what it potentially can and that thing is always outside itself and must, eventually lead to something that has no potential to be anything else ( no infinite regression) and must be pure actuality and , of course, pure existence.

In relation to God and time I've stumbled upon a nice online article, with different viewpoints: http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/

Justhuman wrote:In relation to God and time I've stumbled upon a nice online article, with different viewpoints: http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/

And that's cool. I only hope you understood mine as well.

cheers.