Evidence for God from Science

Starhunter wrote:

Audie wrote: Do you think its laziness, or incapacity? Maybe those are the same thing in this case..
along with a weird combo of arrogance, egoism, presumptuousness, and negligence.

I would not talk about Lemming like that, he is revered by some as infallible, because Einstein shook his hand, and being a Catholic priest - well that just speaks volumes - under the gown so to speak.

In my case, it's simply incapacity, I have no mechanism by which to swallow copious amounts of manure.
But I could be wrong of course, Genesis mentions the big bang, I just can't find it - that would be laziness for sure, or is that a lack of imagination?

I never called him infallible, I simply stated that he's not ignorant in the field of science.

You seem have realized that you have no support for your outrageous claim of him being ignorant ( judging by the short-minded responses you've posted) ; it's probably time to just acknowledge that and move on. Lemaitre could be completely wrong and still not ignorant; I'll repeat this one last time, he made a scientific model based upon his well founded and qualified knowledge of astrophysics and mathematics, none of this constitutes ignorance.

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:God said let there be light, and there was light.

Now where have I heard that?

Wait! This huge explosion of light and energy. A big bang.

The Big Bang (despite it's name) was more of an expansion, not an explosion.
http://big-bang-theory.com

Ken

I know.

Anyway, thanks for the article, did you read the 'Does God exist?'

The universe was created, who created it? The stuff about dna was interesting too. Such specific information always has a designer, a programmer.

There was some really good stuff in those articles. God can't be proved by natural laws as He is supernatural. Where do our emotions come from?

(Sorry, tired, rambling)

Does a photon bouncing off something acquire specific coded information?

I have absolutely no idea. Tbh, I dont really understand the q? If its physics, Im doomed.

Re the dna, as far as I understand it, most agree that the coding is so specific it suggests a source, a creator.

Life cannot come from non life so where did life come from? The BB? Where did that come from then? We must exist/existed within this singularity and yet we dont know what it is. Why cant it be God?

Storyteller wrote:I have absolutely no idea. Tbh, I dont really understand the q? If its physics, Im doomed.

Re the dna, as far as I understand it, most agree that the coding is so specific it suggests a source, a creator.

Life cannot come from non life so where did life come from? The BB? Where did that come from then? We must exist/existed within this singularity and yet we dont know what it is. Why cant it be God?

You did say information has a programmer. The photon does get info about the position and nature of that from which it bounces.

"Most" think dna needed a god to program it? Most biochemists? Whence this info?

How do you or I or anyone know if life can come from non-life?
Its not been observed, but nobody knows where is the line or even if there is a line
between life and non life. Complex organic molecules form spontaneously.
Where is the line, the immutable law that says so far, no further?

Never said it cant be a god, but imagining something more vast than infinite multiverse
and all parallel universes seems making an insuperable mystery a whole lot bigger.

Audie wrote: Dont sell yourself short, you have a mechanism (?) to believe genesis, do you not?

You believe there are people who revere Lemaite as infallible.

You can believe there really was Noahs ark and a big ol' flood, in unicorns,
magic-strength-in-hair hero, that all humans descend from one pair!

That you understand cosmology better than any physicist!
More than likely, you humbly think you know more of earth and life
history than the biologists and geologists!
With no study time!

What's not to believe!

I am flattered, but I did not write the Bible.
And how were you born? Was it a pair of humans male and female, or through another myth?

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:
I never called him infallible, I simply stated that he's not ignorant in the field of science.

You seem have realized that you have no support for your outrageous claim of him being ignorant ( judging by the short-minded responses you've posted) ; it's probably time to just acknowledge that and move on. Lemaitre could be completely wrong and still not ignorant; I'll repeat this one last time, he made a scientific model based upon his well founded and qualified knowledge of astrophysics and mathematics, none of this constitutes ignorance.

I won't put him down any longer, if I can help it. I meant to say inflatable not infallible.

The big bang has no particular starting point in time and location, and its expansion is also not from a particular point or location, because it causes time and space to be created in its process.
The big bang theory is also based on an understanding of nuclear physics, which at the time did not take into account that matter is the smallest component of the equation of energy in the universe. So back to the drawing board.

Now we have a universe or state before the big bang which contains more energy than matter, and matter can then only appear as a result of a subjection or loss or deflation of energy. A simmering down one might say.
They say that the BB is just that, an expansion, a distribution of energy, into what? A space and time chamber created by itself? That would be like the elephant in the boat blowing his own sails to get moving. It does not work. No BB.

Audie wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:God said let there be light, and there was light.

Now where have I heard that?

Wait! This huge explosion of light and energy. A big bang.

The Big Bang (despite it's name) was more of an expansion, not an explosion.
http://big-bang-theory.com

Ken

Expansion, tho, has another meaning is cosmology, does is not?

Does it? Does it mean a huge explosion of light and energy as she was suggesting? If not my point stands.

Ken

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:God said let there be light, and there was light.

Now where have I heard that?

Wait! This huge explosion of light and energy. A big bang.

The Big Bang (despite it's name) was more of an expansion, not an explosion.
http://big-bang-theory.com

Ken

I know.

Anyway, thanks for the article, did you read the 'Does God exist?'

Yes I did. Despite the religious slant, it was an interesting read.

Storyteller wrote:The universe was created, who created it?

How do you know the Universe was created? And how do you define "create"? Does it mean to bring something into existence using available materials? Or to bring into existence using nothing.

What did you find interesting?

Okay, substitute created for came into existence. How did this come into existence?

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:I have absolutely no idea. Tbh, I dont really understand the q? If its physics, Im doomed.

Re the dna, as far as I understand it, most agree that the coding is so specific it suggests a source, a creator.

Life cannot come from non life so where did life come from? The BB? Where did that come from then? We must exist/existed within this singularity and yet we dont know what it is. Why cant it be God?

You did say information has a programmer. The photon does get info about the position and nature of that from which it bounces.

"Most" think dna needed a god to program it? Most biochemists? Whence this info?

How do you or I or anyone know if life can come from non-life?
Its not been observed, but nobody knows where is the line or even if there is a line
between life and non life. Complex organic molecules form spontaneously.
Where is the line, the immutable law that says so far, no further?

Never said it cant be a god, but imagining something more vast than infinite multiverse
and all parallel universes seems making an insuperable mystery a whole lot bigger.

Not all complex information needs a designer to program it, but specified complex Information in all our experience as human beings
Has always had a mind behind it , and DNA is very well known to have specified complex information within it ,especially within the individual nucleotide bases . Now biochemists aren't trained to look for it which is why computer programmers and mechanical engineers can spot it. The key here is the difference between complex information and specified complex information .

It was specifically DNA that helped bill gates get over the hump and become a theist instead of the agnostic position he held before . Now when I say gates is a theist I don't mean he is a Christian or believer in any revelatory book , he just believes in a creator , a personal one but nit one from any religion .

Storyteller wrote:What did you find interesting?

He says if God exists he must exist in a way that his existence cannot be verified by natural means. If I were to describe something that doesn’t have an actual existence; (thoughts, imagination, etc) that is one of the ways I would describe it.

Storyteller wrote:Okay, substitute created for came into existence. How did this come into existence?

How do you know the Universe came into existence? IOW how do you know it hasn't always existed?

Ken

Ken wrote:
How do you know the Universe came into existence? IOW how do you know it hasn't always existed?

I don't know for sure, but the second law of thermodynamics is a pretty good indication that the universe had a beginning.

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:
How do you know the Universe came into existence? IOW how do you know it hasn't always existed?

I don't know for sure, but the second law of thermodynamics is a pretty good indication that the universe had a beginning.

The Universe as we know it had a beginning. If we consider the singular that expanded, to have been the Universe, then I don't think we can confirm it had a beginning.
Also; I don't think anybody is qualified to assume the laws that govern the vast majority of the Universe that we are unfamiliar with; are consistent with the laws of the tiny fraction of the Universe we are familiar with. I don't see how anybody is qualified to make such a leap.

Ken

bippy123 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:I have absolutely no idea. Tbh, I dont really understand the q? If its physics, Im doomed.

Re the dna, as far as I understand it, most agree that the coding is so specific it suggests a source, a creator.

Life cannot come from non life so where did life come from? The BB? Where did that come from then? We must exist/existed within this singularity and yet we dont know what it is. Why cant it be God?

You did say information has a programmer. The photon does get info about the position and nature of that from which it bounces.

"Most" think dna needed a god to program it? Most biochemists? Whence this info?

How do you or I or anyone know if life can come from non-life?
Its not been observed, but nobody knows where is the line or even if there is a line
between life and non life. Complex organic molecules form spontaneously.
Where is the line, the immutable law that says so far, no further?

Never said it cant be a god, but imagining something more vast than infinite multiverse
and all parallel universes seems making an insuperable mystery a whole lot bigger.

Not all complex information needs a designer to program it, but specified complex Information in all our experience as human beings
Has always had a mind behind it , and DNA is very well known to have specified complex information within it ,especially within the individual nucleotide bases . Now biochemists aren't trained to look for it which is why computer programmers and mechanical engineers can spot it. The key here is the difference between complex information and specified complex information .

It was specifically DNA that helped bill gates get over the hump and become a theist instead of the agnostic position he held before . Now when I say gates is a theist I don't mean he is a Christian or believer in any revelatory book , he just believes in a creator , a personal one but nit one from any religion .

Ok, so its agreed that simple, or highly complex information can be coded
by natural processes, into photons.

Is the contention here that these is some unspecified bright line distinction between specified complex info, and regular old
complex info?

Could you identify exactly where the line is, how it is identified, whether this is a scientific law,
and how it might be falsified?

No testimonials plz, I am 100%unimpressed with what Bill Gates thinks in this connection.

Audie wrote:Does a photon bouncing off something acquire specific coded information?

Audie, to help you answer your own question here...
For a primer on CSI can I recommend the following two links to you:

• An Introductory Discussion of Specified Complexity
• An Explanation of Specified Complexity

I'd be interested to hear your own thoughts on why a photon bouncing off something is/isn't CSI?