Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:

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.

Yes. I can imagine that viewpoint. There are several viewpoints, also on this forum, it's a challenge to differentiate between those.

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 don't understand why God MUST exist because of your arguments. Is there really really really no other alternative? As in Philips explanations I get the impression that it is utterly impossible our universe came into being the evolutionary way. Is your conclusion based solely on scientific evidence (hope I've used it here correctly) or because you cannot imagine it any other way?

Paul will speak for himself but there are Christians, such as myself who do view that the universe could have entirely come into existence via an evolutionary path and is not necessarily ordered or completely guided.

neo-x wrote:Paul will speak for himself but there are Christians, such as myself who do view that the universe could have entirely come into existence via an evolutionary path and is not necessarily ordered or completely guided.

This is one of the biggest issues with the argument I present.
It is misunderstood in this way.
The universe can be completely on "autopilot" and that would mean nothing to this argument.
Now, that said we know that, base don our current understanding of evolution, the universe did NOT COME TO BE via that process for various reasons BUT that the universe AS IT IS NOW, did, is quite correct ( one option).
The "unmoved mover" and "first/uncaused cause" arguments to not require a beginning to be, simply that something MUST keep things going.
Science gives us evidence AND proof of this ( if you are not sure how that is then you need to learn some basic and intermediate science).
It's not that everything needs to be ordered or completely guided, its that, quite simply, somethings ( many things/ most things) are.

PaulSacramento wrote:

neo-x wrote:Paul will speak for himself but there are Christians, such as myself who do view that the universe could have entirely come into existence via an evolutionary path and is not necessarily ordered or completely guided.

This is one of the biggest issues with the argument I present.
It is misunderstood in this way.
The universe can be completely on "autopilot" and that would mean nothing to this argument.
Now, that said we know that, base don our current understanding of evolution, the universe did NOT COME TO BE via that process for various reasons BUT that the universe AS IT IS NOW, did, is quite correct ( one option).
The "unmoved mover" and "first/uncaused cause" arguments to not require a beginning to be, simply that something MUST keep things going.
Science gives us evidence AND proof of this ( if you are not sure how that is then you need to learn some basic and intermediate science).
It's not that everything needs to be ordered or completely guided, it's that, quite simply, somethings ( many things/ most things) are.

I can somewhat agree to that. I like the unmoved mover argument a lot and I do think that the only challenge it will have, for now atleast and in the near future, the quantum theory. It still is too early for me to say if I lean towards one or the other but still I like the unmoved mover argument for many many reasons.

One problem I see is that we don't hold isolated thoughts or beliefs. We have a chained thought process (a total package) of determining where we land. Everything is dependant on a previous conclusion/premise/assumption or thought. And perhaps that is where the difference arises from. From where I am looking at things, nothing needs to come from being guided or ordered and I actually don't think anything is really, not even the examples you cited, and that still doesn't hamper my belief in creation or hamper the scientific method at all the observation, testing etc. etc.. I imagine for someone like Phil, as we had our previous convo's, thinks the exact opposite. To him this is inseparable - creation and function and guidance always goes hand in hand. (Sorry Phil to put you on the spot, if this is a misrepresentation, at least this is what I gathered during our convos - correct me If I am wrong here).

You say somethings are guided or goal oriented, so I assume you also hold some are not? If that's the case what would you cite as an example? Just curious. Thanks

Science gives us evidence AND proof of this ( if you are not sure how that is then you need to learn some basic and intermediate science).

I am not sure from your paragraph to what exactly you think there's evidence and proof of? That the universe came from a beginning?
Ok.

You used the term autopilot, though I'd argue that this is mistreating the actual process to me, as that assumes control of some form and pre-ordained specifics that the auto-pilot must adhere to. However, I don't think it's necessary for what we see. To take your example, for example, it is not needed (or to have a goal) for a match to be on fire when it is struck or water to be ice. It is just so because we happen to be in a reality where things react like this. And it is not, as I said before, an isolated thought. I conclude that based on my previous premises. It doesn't have to follow.

To me, the real separation between us who believe God created, is to what and which level did he create and what just carried on, devoid of or with his specific guidance.

Neo, it doesn't matter if the universe had a beginning or not, it matters that SOMETHINGS have a beginning and SOMETHINGS move/change and ALL THOSE things do that ( come into being, move / change) because of something else.
Why does a match, when struck, produce fire and not ice? or not flowers?
It doesn't matter that it doesn't always produce fire ( maybe just a spark, maybe just smoke, maybe nothing), it matters that when it does produce what it is "designed" for ( for lack of a better word) it produces that instead of something else.

You keep saying "react" but why doesn't the match "react" and make flowers ??

PaulSacramento wrote:Neo, it doesn't matter if the universe had a beginning or not, it matters that SOMETHINGS have a beginning and SOMETHINGS move/change and ALL THOSE things do that ( come into being, move / change) because of something else.

Sure, that I can agree with.

Why does a match, when struck, produce fire and not ice? or not flowers?
It doesn't matter that it doesn't always produce fire ( maybe just a spark, maybe just smoke, maybe nothing), it matters that when it does produce what it is "designed" for ( for lack of a better word) it produces that instead of something else.

You keep saying "react" but why doesn't the match "react" and make flowers ??

Because react doesn't mean that its random every time, that only happens at quantum scale and once those attributes of reactions are set because of the elements produced because of and during the expansion they seem to stick, as no further fluctuation is affecting them unlike within the singularity. The same way, let's say, that if environmental factors or biological factors stop happening for any given reasons, there would be no biological evolution as there would be nothing affecting the DNA. The same is true of the universe, there is nothing actively changing the laws or affecting them at their core, hence we have effects that are repeatable. However, in their infancy, within the singularity, things were different.

And so, design doesn't lack a better word, equally you can do again is, react. And this goes back to my previous response, if it wasn't clear before, that this happens because we live in a universe where such and such react.

Consider in a broader sense, that in any array of quantum fluctuations one of them being which caused our singularity to expand, the resulting universes would all have different reactions, because their initial starting points would be random, setting them off on equally strange and different paths, thus having different effects altogether.

And thus why, whether a match creates fire or flowers, has no bearing on my argument. And even if you don't agree with it, which is fine, you must see where I am coming from this has no influence on my chain of thought. To me, it's only one possibility among many which we could have ended with once the initial fluctuations happened.

To illustrate:
Take this example and try to repeat it. Take a few pebbles, throw them on the ground randomly, mark their position, re-throw exactly with the same force and gesture of hand. Your pebbles will land differently, maybe within a few mm's of the original and a little off but not at the exact same spots as before. Hypothetically speaking you could try till eternity and never get the same spots again. But you will get remarkably different ones.

Or take another example, go to your kitchen sink and open the water tap, record the flow of water, close it, open it again. The flow of water would be different, may be alike but not exactly the same.

Or take another, take a canon ball, observe the temperature, air pressure, humidity, etc. etc. and fire it in the air, mark the landing spot. Take another ball and with the same conditions fire again. The balls won't land at the exact same spot, maybe close but not the same. They should but they wouldn't.

You can try anyone of the experiments, but the results would be different and if you agree with me now or after you have tried anyone of them, I'd ask you:

Why doesn't it land every time the same way even when you throw it or observe it or repeat it the same way - as opposed to a match which creates fire and not flowers everytime, what's different here?

Neo,

With the examples you gave, pebbles, cannon balls, and water, would you agree that what could happen to each, is limited to the laws in place? For example, throwing the pebbles would not land on the ground 99 out of 100 times, and the 100th time fly of to the moon, correct?

And if yes, would you agree that the laws of physics that work in our world, were meant to be exactly how they are?

In other words, God made the laws of physics to work exactly how they are working, whether it was by direct or indirect creation, correct?

RickD wrote:Neo,

With the examples you gave, pebbles, cannon balls, and water, would you agree that what could happen to each, is limited to the laws in place? For example, throwing the pebbles would not land on the ground 99 out of 100 times, and the 100th time fly of to the moon, correct?

And if yes, would you agree that the laws of physics that work in our world, were meant to be exactly how they are?

In other words, God made the laws of physics to work exactly how they are working, whether it was by direct or indirect creation, correct?

The whole point is that it doesn't matter where the pebbles land or not. It's not remarkable because there could be endless equally different possibilities. Similarly, the laws we see are just one such set of thrown pebbles. The other ones would be different.

The laws in our universe are what they are, they weren't intended to be anything. It is literally, in a visual way, God throwing pebbles, and one of the results spawned us. You could argue God's foreknowledge of this happening and I won't object to it. I certainly think that's true.

The examples are to illustrate that some things aren't repeatable in the real world as opposed to some examples Paul brought up. Unpredictability is inherent in the very fabric of reality. So a match creates fire but the same experiments I listed give out different results even in an identical situation.

And the answer lies in scalability. Things behave differently at different scales. For example, take the same match into space and try to light it, it won't. Or take it a planet where ethane or methane are abundant and the match will be a flamethrower. The windstorm on earth at 100 miles per hour will wreck havoc but the same on Mars will feel like soft breeze touching your cheeks.

And the same applies to physics and the laws, which break down at the singularity. At the quantum scale, things don't behave like you and I see regularly each day around us. It is not akin to repeatedly lighting a match and saying there's a fire; at the quantum scale, it doesn't work. Everytime you light it, it will create a different result. The match may create fire at one time or may equally create an alternate reality in another. And that is what I have been saying all along. You can't apply these simple cause and effects principles to the start of the universe like clockwork, in a linear fashion. It doesn't apply.

Paul seems to have that distinction but I am going one step further to say that it is not even necessary to have goals or designs. It works regardless. And to me, that is the beauty of creation, direct or indirect.

Take this example and try to repeat it. Take a few pebbles, throw them on the ground randomly, mark their position, re-throw exactly with the same force and gesture of hand. Your pebbles will land differently, maybe within a few mm's of the original and a little off but not at the exact same spots as before. Hypothetically speaking you could try till eternity and never get the same spots again. But you will get remarkably different ones.

Sorry, but that is not what I am talking about.
Using you example:
Why do your pebbles land at all? or why don't they turn into flowers when they land? or perhaps more inline:
Why do pebbles fly through the air like they do instead of like a cube or feather would?

And the same applies to physics and the laws, which break down at the singularity. At the quantum scale, things don't behave like you and I see regularly each day around us. It is not akin to repeatedly lighting a match and saying there's a fire; at the quantum scale, it doesn't work. The match may create fire or may equally create an alternate reality. And that is what I have been saying all along. You can't apply these simple cause and effects principles to the start of the universe like clockwork, in a linear fashion. It doesn't apply.

Not relevant because we are not talking about anything at the quantum scale BUT if we were, then you would have to show WHY, at the quantum scale, these things become A instead of B.
So, you would still be in the same boat addressing WHY A happens instead of B, C or D.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Take this example and try to repeat it. Take a few pebbles, throw them on the ground randomly, mark their position, re-throw exactly with the same force and gesture of hand. Your pebbles will land differently, maybe within a few mm's of the original and a little off but not at the exact same spots as before. Hypothetically speaking you could try till eternity and never get the same spots again. But you will get remarkably different ones.

Sorry, but that is not what I am talking about.
Using you example:
Why do your pebbles land at all? or why don't they turn into flowers when they land? or perhaps more inline:
Why do pebbles fly through the air like they do instead of like a cube or feather would?

And I am telling you, if you re-read my response, that it doesn't matter why pebbles land or fly.

EDIT:
You are asking the same thing again and again, I have already told you that in this instance they do because it is just one out of many possibilities. THAT THERE IS NO FORCE ACTING ON THEM AT THE MOMENT TO BEHAVE OTHERWISE, UNLIKE THE SINGULARITY WHERE FORCES WERE ACTING ON THEM. caps for emphasis only. That is why the pebbles land at all because the initial random conditions resulted in a place where this could happen. And since we know it's random, the next time it would be different, just like the example I quoted.

It doesn't make any difference to my argument that pebbles land or fly.

I understand you are trying to introduce the unmoved mover eventually, but there is no strong link that clearly shows it, not from creation alone it doesn't show. I can imagine it pre-singularity but I am not sure what that exactly means or entails, we don't know much yet.

PaulSacramento wrote:

And the same applies to physics and the laws, which break down at the singularity. At the quantum scale, things don't behave like you and I see regularly each day around us. It is not akin to repeatedly lighting a match and saying there's a fire; at the quantum scale, it doesn't work. The match may create fire or may equally create an alternate reality. And that is what I have been saying all along. You can't apply these simple cause and effects principles to the start of the universe like clockwork, in a linear fashion. It doesn't apply.

Not relevant because we are not talking about anything at the quantum scale BUT if we were, then you would have to show WHY, at the quantum scale, these things become A instead of B.
So, you would still be in the same boat addressing WHY A happens instead of B, C or D.

Paul, if you would show me why pebbles land differently, you will also answer your question of why at the quantum scale these things become A instead of B.

EDIT:
I told you the why actually, no one knows the full nature of the how, though. But we'll get there I suppose.

Neo,

I think at least part of what you're saying, is that before the Big Bang, the laws of the universe didn't exist. Before the Big Bang, there was no universe for them to exist.

But assuming there was another universe, or something else, before our universe, there had to be some kind of laws that allowed the Big Bang to happen, correct?

I think I understand what you're saying about the unmoved mover cannot be proven by the existence of the universe. We just have no way of knowing what was "before". But wouldn't you say that whatever it is, would be kicking the proverbial can down the road? The fact that something, anything moves, something had to start the moving, right? Something cannot begin to move on its own, right?

You agree that something cannot cause itself?