Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:

Blob wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Who can say that the standard physics of our world really apply to the big bang, or the event of creation? I find nothing persuasive here I guess.

I agree - in fact physics breaks down and nothing is really known about the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe.

Not real sure if I agree or not!? IT certianly, to my mind lends evidence to God, that science can't adequatley explain things. Perhaps physcis can't explain the process because their was an extra-physical force at work during this very early periond of time. The only scientific answer that has merit, for me, is that these laws and science itself evolved in conjunction with the origin itself. And if this is excepted than science as a method has no realiable answer. I however do accept that science is absolute, although I can't make a valid scientific claim that it is.

This isn't the case, the extrapolation can only work within the framework of current understanding. The work done to determine the conditions of the early universe are based on the assumption that the fundamental physics remains in place. If you add extra-physical forces then the innitial assumptions are useless. In other words if you beleive that there may be extraphysical forces, then there is no pont in trying to extrapolate back to the moments right after the big bang. In fact you might as well throw science out the window, because as August had pointed out in an earlier post, science is based on the assumption that nature behaves in a predictable manor.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The work done to determine the conditions of the early universe are based on the assumption that the fundamental physics remains in place. If you add extra-physical forces then the innitial assumptions are useless. In other words if you beleive that there may be extraphysical forces, then there is no pont in trying to extrapolate back to the moments right after the big bang. In fact you might as well throw science out the window, because as August had pointed out in an earlier post, science is based on the assumption that nature behaves in a predictable manor.

I agree that physical forces remain in place and were the same physical laws that we know and love today. I don't follow your logic that says that theorizing that forces beyond those covered in physics and science mean that you must reject those long standing dsiciplines.

There is no scientific foundation to claim that there are no forces outside of physcics and science, there is a philosophical foundation to claim that, and many scientists have adopted a materialistic philosophy among others, but there is no scientific foundation to simply exclude it because you don't believe in it. There are things that science cannot explain from a simple materialistic/scientific approach. My theory that God exists and contains things by his power is not anti-scientific it explains my observations. This rejection of extra-physical forces is why the big bang has such a problem explaining things wihtout theorizing that Dark-Matter which is apparently extra-physical exists. There is no difference here scienctists, cannot simply reject God because they doesn't want to deal with what that might mean.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The work done to determine the conditions of the early universe are based on the assumption that the fundamental physics remains in place. If you add extra-physical forces then the innitial assumptions are useless. In other words if you beleive that there may be extraphysical forces, then there is no pont in trying to extrapolate back to the moments right after the big bang. In fact you might as well throw science out the window, because as August had pointed out in an earlier post, science is based on the assumption that nature behaves in a predictable manor.

I agree that physical forces remain in place and were the same physical laws that we know and love today. I don't follow your logic that says that theorizing that forces beyond those covered in physics and science mean that you must reject those long standing dsiciplines.

There is no scientific foundation to claim that there are no forces outside of physcics and science, there is a philosophical foundation to claim that, and many scientists have adopted a materialistic philosophy among others, but there is no scientific foundation to simply exclude it because you don't believe in it. There are things that science cannot explain from a simple materialistic/scientific approach. My theory that God exists and contains things by his power is not anti-scientific it explains my observations. This rejection of extra-physical forces is why the big bang has such a problem explaining things wihtout theorizing that Dark-Matter which is apparently extra-physical exists. There is no difference here scienctists, cannot simply reject God because they doesn't want to deal with what that might mean.

I think one of us might have misunderstood the other or perhaps both of us. In any case the science of physics assumes that natural laws remain constant, even in the fantastic conditions just after the big bang.

Dark matter is not an extra-physical entity, if it has a predictable nature and can be measured it is within the realms of experimentation and observation.

The idea of dark matter arose from the fact that the visible matter, i.e stars could not account for the clustering formations we saw in the sky, ie galaxies.

It has been calculated that 80 - 90% or more! of the universe consists of matter which we cannot detect and is unlike ordinary matter!

Recently dark matter has been detected by observing the curving of light as it passes by the objects.

reference Abell 901/2 supercluster

Another idea is that nutrinos which stream through us and the earth all the time make up about one fifth of dark matter.

And yet another idea is that the universe is filled with dark matter and dark energy. The dark energy remains constant as the universe expand while the dark matter in comparison to the volume decreases in density.
So as the universe expands as the ratio of dark matter to dark energy decreases, causing the universe to expand faster and faster.

I just thought dark matter was matter that didn't produce light...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I just thought dark matter was matter that didn't produce light...

Well in a sence you're right, however not just light but all electromagnetic radiation. Light after all is only the portion of the spectrum we can see.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... ctrum.html

It is quite possible that dark matter doesn't even exist at all!
The gravitation as we understand it may be flawed! However most physicists disregard this notion.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Dark matter is not an extra-physical entity, if it has a predictable nature and can be measured it is within the realms of experimentation and observation.

The idea of dark matter arose from the fact that the visible matter, i.e stars could not account for the clustering formations we saw in the sky, ie galaxies.

It has been calculated that 80 - 90% or more! of the universe consists of matter which we cannot detect and is unlike ordinary matter!

I guess my point is that I can make the exact same calims about God. Some scientists have concocted this Theory of Dark Matter. It is interesting that science has found that the visible physical things in this world are not sufficient to explain everything. By God all things exist, and by his power things continue to exist. How is this any less reasonable than the theory of Dark Matter. Really the two explain the very same thing, that is that physical realty cannot explain the nature of things.

I reject that dark matter is proven by science and that it is available for expirementation, but I agree that it is a valid theory that explains things

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:In any case the science of physics assumes that natural laws remain constant, even in the fantastic conditions just after the big bang.

Some (such as Lee Smolin) would disagree, speculating some many-universe theories (particularly his own) may be able to account for restricted differences in physical laws within varying universes.

Kurieuo

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Dark matter is not an extra-physical entity, if it has a predictable nature and can be measured it is within the realms of experimentation and observation.

The idea of dark matter arose from the fact that the visible matter, i.e stars could not account for the clustering formations we saw in the sky, ie galaxies.

It has been calculated that 80 - 90% or more! of the universe consists of matter which we cannot detect and is unlike ordinary matter!

I guess my point is that I can make the exact same calims about God. Some scientists have concocted this Theory of Dark Matter. It is interesting that science has found that the visible physical things in this world are not sufficient to explain everything. By God all things exist, and by his power things continue to exist. How is this any less reasonable than the theory of Dark Matter. Really the two explain the very same thing, that is that physical realty cannot explain the nature of things.

I reject that dark matter is proven by science and that it is available for expirementation, but I agree that it is a valid theory that explains things

Many people want a naturalistic explanation, no matter how stupid...You remember Miller, the guy who did the test that concocted a toxic mixture? Yeah, he's proposed that aliens have seeded the earth...and he's been quoted in at least science article...and he's written about it as well-you can tell how dedicated these guys are to finding a non-theistic answer-ALIENS MADE LIFE ON EARTH :-p

ALIENS MADE LIFE ON EARTH

Maybe aliens did, though I don't believe it either, KMart

Aliens sounds to me like a case of argument from wonder. A person is so in awe of how unable they are to explain a thing that they "short circuit" to a fantastical answer. Yet the answer itself is, in fact, conjured out of thin air and utterly underivable from the gap in knowledge it aims to plug.

Blob wrote:

ALIENS MADE LIFE ON EARTH

Maybe aliens did, though I don't believe it either, KMart

Aliens sounds to me like a case of argument from wonder. A person is so in awe of how unable they are to explain a thing that they "short circuit" to a fantastical answer. Yet the answer itself is, in fact, conjured out of thin air and utterly underivable from the gap in knowledge it aims to plug.

But appealing to aliens simply begs the question...in the answer to the question "how did life arise" one assumes life has risen from non life...somewhere else.

Yes - "sentient beings" explanations are doubly flawed. They are the product of wonder as I pointed out and they answer nothing as you point out.

The only real significant thing about dark matter is whether there is enough of it to cuase the Universe to stop expanding, and trigger the Big Crunch.

Jeus will have returned before that become relevant.

Uh...there's only 28% of the mass required to cause a crunch.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Uh...there's only 28% of the mass required to cause a crunch.

Pick up on aisle 3....

It all depends on how much Dark Matter there is

You may not be able to see it, but you can detect its gravitational pull.