Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:57 am**

Felgar wrote
Consider this: Has tomorrow already happenned? To God yes, to us no. It's the same thing just in reverse.

Byblos wrote
I may have an issue with the above statement but I have a feeling this will open up a can of worms. In any case, let me try to explain my point of view. I believe completely and wholeheartedly in free will. It is the greatest gift that God bestowed upon us. As such, our future is determined one moment at a time according to our actions. If tomorrow has already occurred to God (i.e. if God knows what I will do tomorrow) would that not mean that my tomorrow is already pre-planned for me? By extension, would that not negate free will?

Jbuza wrote
Yeah that is something isn't it? The Bible clearly talks about predestination and free will. I have been toying with this idea about God being light. IT explains a great deal. If God were light, or at least like light, then he would exist outside time, and he would comprehend all of time, he would have infinite properties with respect to energy, size, and such.

Byblos wrote
Very interesting. We should create a new thread for this and discuss it further. We already know God is outside time or space and not bound by them but can you expand on your ideas a little more?

Science has a struggle of comprehending the qualities of light, it has characteristics that point to or show the nature of God as He is. The moment of creation as it is written to have occurred in 144 hours, by my interpretation, required enormous energy, which is in agreement with most theories. We know that there is a steady history of light speed having been faster, and that we cannot explain it with regards to our understanding. We know that a being that travels at light speed, would have extra physical properties. Since we see hints that existing outside or beyond the properties of physics offers certain attributes that could be applied to God, it is naturally an interesting idea.

It has been theorized that the speed of light was much much faster during the time of creation, which clearly has dif. Interpretations, and that seems to be within the realm of possib. esp. since we see that light speed seems to show some change in speed. God says that by him all things consist, other scripture talks about the WORD having a hand in all things made. It is interesting to note that quantum mechanics and light speed theory and red shift and atomic structural theories all tie together. There is this power that determines how fast light travels, how close to nuclei electrons orbit, which quanta are, and determines the red shift that we observe in the heavens.

One would think that the Big Bang if it were true would result in red shifts of various “speed”. I say “speed” because that is used to measure the % of deviation from light speed, while the “fact” that planets are actually moving is in fact still hypothesis. This is not what we see we see red shifts explained by the very quantum theory that points to this overall force. Red shifts occur on an integral basis. If, or should I say when based on the evidence, light speed changes the orbits of electrons change, red shift will differ, and advanced physics will change.

In any event this force that is light speed and holds atoms together, and regulates the galaxies in their orbits tells us a great deal about God. If God exists outside time and space, than He would be infinite, and all of time would exists before Him at once, and His nature is a fascinating. God said he put the stars in the heavens for various purposes including for signs. I happen to think one of those sings is yelling loudly about the existence of God. Also if God sent a sign to guide the wisemen to the birth of his son, do you think he had to set the star in the heavens mellenia ago, or could he in his infinite attributes way beyond the speed of light cause it to be by His own Will. Could he not cause a supernova when he wishes, in that instant, to show a sign?

The properties of light and how that influences every physical thing that is points to the properties of God

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:00 am**

Byblos wrote: God does not have a physical appearance so the physical body is not what is meant by the image of God

And what do you base this on?

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2005 2:57 pm**

Byblos wrote:I may have an issue with the above statement but I have a feeling this will open up a can of worms. In any case, let me try to explain my point of view. I believe completely and wholeheartedly in free will. It is the greatest gift that God bestowed upon us. As such, our future is determined one moment at a time according to our actions. If tomorrow has already occurred to God (i.e. if God knows what I will do tomorrow) would that not mean that my tomorrow is already pre-planned for me? By extension, would that not negate free will?

I also believe that free-will is a fundamental foundation of the nature of God, our relationship with Him, and ultimately central to the entire concept of Christianity. You could track down a number of discussions that I've had with Puritan to get a better feeling for my beliefs. However I also believe that God know the future. Without getting too deep into it, I basically chalk it up as God not being bounded by time and also not being bound by causality. He can know the future and we can choose it at the same time. If WE knew the future, then that would be different and that might very well negate free will. Does that make any sense?

Byblos wrote:That, of course, assumes the physical Adam and Eve were created. It can be argued that the creation of Adam and Eve was accomplished when God breathed a spirit into an already existing animal. That would reconcile with evolution (by design).

Hmm... That's an interesting concept. I agree that our Godly image is definately our spiritual beings and not our bodies. Could God have had our bodies naturally developed before embuing us with His qualities? If I thought evolution had sufficient scientific support then this would certainly be worth considering. Yes God made Adam from clay but numerous points in the Bible recognize that all life comes from dust/clay. Interesting...

Regardless of whether you agree, at least I think you can understand where I'm coming from. That's good enough for now.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:07 pm**

Jbuza wrote:
Byblos wrote: God does not have a physical appearance so the physical body is not what is meant by the image of God
And what do you base this on?

Nothing more than a personal observation (I was merely theorizing). If God does not have a physical appearance (DNA let's say), in what image are we then made? The spiritual one is the only thing I could think of.

Posted: **Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:41 am**

Jbuza wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Jbuza wrote:Theory of light has numerous times states, and it seems to be accepted that light traveles the same speed in all directions reguardless of the speed the body that produces the light is moving.

What causes red shift then? A slowing of the speed of light would cause a red shift woudln't it?

There is a red shift, but it is not explained by an expanding universe. And the red shift is the evidence that the universe is expaning.

Seems there is no real evidnece for an expanding universe at all.
Lets use a siren as an example. When an ambulance approaches the pitch of the siren is higher than normal, as the ambulance passes the pitch becomes lower. The sound waves however travel at the roughly same rate throughout this whole sequence.

Light does precisely the same thing. In the visible light spectrum longer wavelengths are red and shorter ones are blue. When an object is moving away it will stretch the wavelength like the pitch lowering in a siren. The speed of the lightwave remains the same.
Yeah that is the doppler effect and has been clearly demonstrated with sound, but numerous tests with light indicate that this doesn't happen with light. Our best scientific tests indicate that the speed of light is the same reguardless of the fact that the planetary body is theorized to be moving away. The light should be traveling at the same speed away from us as it is towards us. The evidence of an expanding universe is pretty weak if it rests on this red shift. There should be no red shift the speed of the moving body should not effect the visible light.

It is well known that the speed of an object effects the electromagnetic wave emanating or reflecting off of the object. Otherwise we would not have radar or laser speed guns. Stars and Galaxies move at a relatively greater speed than cars and airplanes.

Posted: **Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:44 am**

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Jbuza wrote:The red shift is explained by a decrease in the speed of light, not by an expanding universe.

RECONSIDERING LIGHT-SPEED

It is at this point in the discussion that a consideration of light-speed becomes important. It has already been mentioned that an increase in vacuum energy density will result in an increase in the electrical permittivity and the magnetic permeability of space, since they are energy related. Since light-speed is inversely linked to both these properties, if the energy density of the vacuum increases, light-speed will decrease uniformly throughout the cosmos. Indeed, in 1990 Scharnhorst [51] and Barton [20] demonstrated that a lessening of the energy density of a vacuum would produce a higher velocity for light. This is explicable in terms of the QED approach. The virtual particles that make up the 'seething vacuum' can absorb a photon of light and then re-emit it when they annihilate. This process, while fast, takes a finite time. The lower the energy density of the vacuum, the fewer virtual particles will be in the path of light photons in transit. As a consequence, the fewer absorptions and re-emissions which take place over a given distance, the faster light travels over that distance [52, 53].

However, the converse is also true. The higher the energy density of the vacuum, the more virtual particles will interact with the light photons in a given distance, and so the slower light will travel. Similarly, when light enters a transparent medium such as glass, similar absorptions and re-emissions occur, but this time it is the atoms in the glass which absorb and re-emit the light photons. This is why light slows as it travels through a denser medium. Indeed, the more closely packed the atoms, the slower light will travel as a greater number of interactions occur in a given distance. In a recent illustration of this light-speed was reduced to 17 metres/second as it passed through extremely closely packed sodium atoms near absolute zero [54]. All this is now known from experimental physics. This agrees with Barnett's comments in Nature [11] that 'The vacuum is certainly a most mysterious and elusive object…The suggestion that the value of the speed of light is determined by its structure is worthy of serious investigation by theoretical physicists.'

On the new model,the redshift measurements imply that light-speed, c, is dropping exponentially. For each redshift quantum change, the speed of light has apparently changed by a significant amount. The precise quantity is dependent upon the value adopted for the Hubble constant which links a galaxy's redshift with its distance.

AN OBSERVED DECLINE IN LIGHT-SPEED

The question then arises as to whether or not any other observational evidence exists that the speed of light has diminished with time. Surprisingly, some 40 articles about this very matter appeared in the scientific literature from 1926 to 1944 [56]. Some important points emerge from this literature. In 1944, despite a strong preference for the constancy of atomic quantities, N. E. Dorsey [57] was reluctantly forced to admit: 'As is well known to those acquainted with the several determinations of the velocity of light, the definitive values successively reported … have, in general, decreased monotonously from Cornu's 300.4 megametres per second in 1874 to Anderson's 299.776 in 1940 …' Even Dorsey's own re-working of the data could not avoid that conclusion.

However, the decline in the measured value of 'c' was noticed much earlier. In 1886, Simon Newcomb reluctantly concluded that the older results obtained around 1740 were in agreement with each other, but they indicated 'c' was about 1% higher than in his own time [58], the early 1880's. In 1941 history repeated itself when Birge made a parallel statement while writing about the 'c' values obtained by Newcomb, Michelson, and others around 1880. Birge was forced to concede that '… these older results are entirely consistent among themselves, but their average is nearly 100 km/s greater than that given by the eight more recent results' [59]. Each of these three eminent scientists held to a belief in the absolute constancy of 'c'. This makes their careful admissions about the experimentally declining values of measured light speed more significant.

EXAMINING THE DATA

The data obtained over the last 320 years at least imply a decay in 'c' [56]. Over this period, all 163 measurements of light-speed by 16 methods reveal a non-linear decay trend. Evidence for this decay trend exists within each measurement technique as well as overall. Furthermore, an initial analysis of the behaviour of a number of other atomic constants was made in 1981 to see how they related to 'c' decay. On the basis of the measured value of these 'constants', it became apparent that energy was being conserved throughout the process of 'c' variation. In all, confirmatory trends appear in 475 measurements of 11 other atomic quantities by 25 methods. Analysis of the most accurate atomic data reveals that the trend has a consistent magnitude in all the other atomic quantities that vary synchronously with light-speed [56].

All these measurements have been made during a period when there have been no quantum increases in the energy of atomic orbits. These observations reinforce the conclusion that, between any proposed quantum jumps, energy is conserved in all relevant atomic processes, as no extra energy is accessible to the atom from the ZPF. Because energy is conserved, the c-associated atomic constants vary synchronously with c, and the existing order in the cosmos is not disrupted or intruded upon. Historically, it was this very behaviour of the various constants, indicating that energy was being conserved, which was a key factor in the development of the 1987 Norman-Setterfield report, The Atomic Constants, Light And Time [56].

The mass of data supporting these conclusions comprises some 638 values measured by 43 methods. Montgomery and Dolphin did a further extensive statistical analysis on the data in 1993 and concluded that the results supported the 'c' decay proposition if energy was conserved [60]. The analysis was developed further and formally presented in August 1994 by Montgomery [61]. These papers answered questions related to the statistics involved and have not yet been refuted.

http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html
Is this a linear decay?

The reason I asked you if this was a linear decay is because I beleive you do not understand the material you posted. You read an article and seeing that the conclusions were favorible you beleive it. However you did not bother to understand the material at all. If I were to plot the speed of light on a scale and take measurements of it and the supposed speed of light 10,000 years ago, in about a few years we would all no longer be able to see anything beyond several inches without waiting a few hours for the light to come to our eyes. The article however declares the decay as non-linear, but fails to explain why.
Any constant can be mapped to a logrithmic curve if we assume we are in the constant end of the curve. The article is rediculous.

Posted: **Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:44 pm**

That isn't true. The reason I chose information from that source, is that the present information, and their is more reviewed information available, if you would care to investigate the matter, that indicates that we don't have complete knowledge of light speed, don't have complete knowledge of the essence of space, don't have complete knowledge of time, don't understand how gravity, hagnaitsm, light, and time interact.

So I guess you are the one reading stuff and declaring it as truth. You come in here and present red shift and say that means that stars are moving, when in fact the evidence you have is more tenuous than mine.

My position is that we do not in fact know what causes red shift, and I have offered several probable alternatives. I have yet to strictly align myself with any one of them, because I don't know the whole matter like you.

Red shift has traditionally been measured by our understanding. You use doppler effect, radar guns, and such as evidence for your theory, because that is what you understand.

So while we can agree to measure red shift in a speed that would cause such a shift, we cannot agree that the red shift is caused by moving stars. IT is quite probable that as light travels thtough space and gets absorbed and reemitted many times that its location on the EMS could change.

Since you have a preconceived idea of a big bang, that leads you to your hypothesis to explain it, but to attack my position that it is explained by several other hypotheses is meaningless and intellectual superiority.

Posted: **Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:29 pm**

Jbuza wrote:That isn't true. The reason I chose information from that source, is that the present information, and their is more reviewed information available, if you would care to investigate the matter, that indicates that we don't have complete knowledge of light speed, don't have complete knowledge of the essence of space, don't have complete knowledge of time, don't understand how gravity, hagnaitsm, light, and time interact.

So I guess you are the one reading stuff and declaring it as truth. You come in here and present red shift and say that means that stars are moving, when in fact the evidence you have is more tenuous than mine.

My position is that we do not in fact know what causes red shift, and I have offered several probable alternatives. I have yet to strictly align myself with any one of them, because I don't know the whole matter like you.

Red shift has traditionally been measured by our understanding. You use doppler effect, radar guns, and such as evidence for your theory, because that is what you understand.

So while we can agree to measure red shift in a speed that would cause such a shift, we cannot agree that the red shift is caused by moving stars. IT is quite probable that as light travels thtough space and gets absorbed and reemitted many times that its location on the EMS could change.

Since you have a preconceived idea of a big bang, that leads you to your hypothesis to explain it, but to attack my position that it is explained by several other hypotheses is meaningless and intellectual superiority.

Now this I can agree with, red shift may be due to other factors.
Meaning there may be no red shift at all, or the measurements need to account for other variables. But you can't deny that the star is too far to measure using triangulation using the diameter of the Earth's orbit.

But re-read what the article has to say about c decay and you'll see why I dismissed it.

It is not intellectual superiority, I am always willing to accept valid evidence. The article misrepresents measurement made in the past. And does not have any real evidence on the decay of c. I am not the one with preconceived notions this article is so full of preconceptions it is laughable. This is so not science I have to vehemently reject this article in its totality. This is such a terrible example of number cooking and fudging. And then he has the audacity of complicating the matter with ludicrous equations and filler sentences. I am only trying to help you here this is not a good article for your cause, it's best you drop this one like a hot potato.

Evidence for God from Science

The distance to the stars. And Old earth creationism.