Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Audie wrote:Is anyone who says they KNOW where it came from telling the truth?

Probably not, but then, is anyone who says they KNOW that nobody knows telling the truth either?

"Science doesn't do truth."

-Audie, aka, Min, aka Chinese Cowgirl

Religion pretends to.

That's why Jesus tore into many religious folk and himself claimed to be the Truth.
Science doesn't do truth. Religion pretends to. Jesus is the Truth.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Probably not, but then, is anyone who says they KNOW that nobody knows telling the truth either?

"Science doesn't do truth."

-Audie, aka, Min, aka Chinese Cowgirl

Religion pretends to.

Careful Audie! You're veering off course, into that dangerous religion/metaphysics area again. You had better get your swimmies on first.

Nah. I will let you seekers go boldly forth where nobody can actually do.

Last I knew you guys had still not worked out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Truth? Truth is, half* of you guys still think that seashells atop Everest

Well, I don't know if it was Everest, but I ave read of seashells on top of some mountains.
Don't you believe in plate tectonics?

The Thorong La is the high pass north of Annapurna, at a height of 5400m. I can confirm that it is scattered with small round stones, any of which, split open with an ice-axe, reveals a fossil ammonite. Yes, the high Himalaya really is littered with seashells.

hughfarey wrote:The Thorong La is the high pass north of Annapurna, at a height of 5400m. I can confirm that it is scattered with small round stones, any of which, split open with an ice-axe, reveals a fossil ammonite. Yes, the high Himalaya really is littered with seashells.

Cool, who does not like ammonites?

The point of what I said, that Krink so reflexively diverted was about
global-flood people thinking that receding waters from their flood left
the seashells on top of Everest, and for that matter, thousands of feet underground in Kansas.

Really, this flood debate has gotten very silly! It really doesn't matter WHEN it occurred, nor does the scale/extent of it matter. Because one cannot PROVE it from either OEC or YEC perspective. What really matters is whether or not it actually occurred - again, an unprovable thing (as to timing or details) that really boils down to whether one believes Scripture (and that is, the Old AND New Testament) - and that is not to say those believing it must also assign a date to it. So many cultures speak of a Noah-like figure, ark, and great flood - while not definitive, it is, however, very interesting.

The way evidence works is quite interesting, as sometimes, the very same evidences could reasonably support various scenarios, even though only one can be actually true. This kind of like physical symptoms of illness a human body produces in reaction. The very same symptoms could be something benign that will go away on its own - without a cause ever being found - OR, those symptoms could be caused by a catastrophic, even fatal, illness. The flood variables are just way too complex, without even a rather recent flood (Young Earth model) the evidences are uncertain - yes, it depends upon BOTH - the time and the scale. But I've been reading about this stuff for over 20 years, seen a gazillion spirited debates - no knockouts yet, not from ANY side of belief over the matter. And yet, the debate goes on - and on, and ON, "to infinity and beyond!"

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:The Thorong La is the high pass north of Annapurna, at a height of 5400m. I can confirm that it is scattered with small round stones, any of which, split open with an ice-axe, reveals a fossil ammonite. Yes, the high Himalaya really is littered with seashells.

Cool, who does not like ammonites?

The point of what I said, that Krink so reflexively diverted was about
global-flood people thinking that receding waters from their flood left
the seashells on top of Everest, and for that matter, thousands of feet underground in Kansas.

Yes, I think we understood your point, but nonetheless it's an interesting point that sea shells are found high up on mountains. No diversion necessary, your point was understood, but I cared little for the embedded insinuations and your constant intellectual heckling against YECs, so I decided to make light of it.

You know, there's this thing people do to others, called kicking them while they're down. Such people, often feel insecure in themselves and do such to make themselves feel bigger and stronger than the other. It gets carried over into intellectualism as well. Isn't that what you were doing Audie? Yes, an easy kick to YECs and what, in your eyes Creation and Christians at large? Make you feel smart did it? Like some big scientist because what, you did some biology course?

You're just being an intellectual bully.

Are you saying Audie's arrogance and bullying is a cover up for her insecurities?

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:The Thorong La is the high pass north of Annapurna, at a height of 5400m. I can confirm that it is scattered with small round stones, any of which, split open with an ice-axe, reveals a fossil ammonite. Yes, the high Himalaya really is littered with seashells.

Cool, who does not like ammonites?

The point of what I said, that Krink so reflexively diverted was about
global-flood people thinking that receding waters from their flood left
the seashells on top of Everest, and for that matter, thousands of feet underground in Kansas.

Yes, I think we understood your point, but nonetheless it's an interesting point that sea shells are found high up on mountains. No diversion necessary, your point was understood, but I cared little for the embedded insinuations and your constant intellectual heckling against YECs, so I decided to make light of it.

It is an interesting thing, and possibly something to discuss rather than banter about.

You know, there's this thing people do to others, called kicking them while they're down. Such people, often feel insecure in themselves and do such to make themselves feel bigger and stronger than the other. It gets carried over into intellectualism as well. Isn't that what you were doing Audie? Yes, an easy kick to YECs and what, in your eyes Creation and Christians at large? Make you feel smart did it? Like some big scientist because what, you did some biology course?

You're just being an intellectual bully

.

Sometimes there is an element of that, sure, the bullying. Not "just' but sure, on occasion.
Im of course far from the only one here who has indulged in that or
other less subtle sorts of bullying. Something good for all of us to observe.

I did just swear off further "debate' with one of the low hanging fruit
and should extend that.

You quite recently complained of an insulting post from me.
What I said in it was at least all accurate, as opposed to this string of
insults most of which is not.

RickD wrote:Are you saying Audie's arrogance and bullying is a cover up for her insecurities?

If only I had known you felt bullied! Poor dear.

Second Timothy 3:16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btynJoH8qcU

hughfarey wrote:

Byblos wrote:Of course the math conceptually works. I don't even have an issue with positing an eternal steady state followed by an inflationary period. Except an eternal steady state does not, cannot on its own, arbitrarily give rise to inflation.

Probably true, depending on your definition of eternal. If time is a measure of change, then the term "eternal steady state" might have no meaning.

I don't want to get bogged down with the semantics of defining eternity and what the term "eternal steady state" means because then we venture into the metaphysical.

The fact is that the BVG theorem is independent (meaning it still holds) of the physical reality including quantum gravity (with a caveat), so long as the single condition still holds, i.e. Havg > 0. This is confirmed by Alexander Vilenkin (one third of the BVG). In an exchange with William Lane Craig Vilenkin said this:

Vilenkin wrote:The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning assumes a classical spacetime, in which the notions of time and causality can be defined. On very small time and length scales, quantum fluctuations in the structure of spacetime could be so large that these classical concepts become totally inapplicable. Then we do not really have a language to describe what is happening, because all our physics concepts are deeply rooted in the concepts of space and time. This is what I mean when I say that we do not even know what the right questions are.

The underlined being the caveat I referred to.

Of course some would argue an 'aha' moment with the reference to classical spacetime and contend (wrongly) that the theorem is only applicable to classical spacetime but not to quantum gravity, meaning that if Einstein's equations were to be altered then BVG doesn't apply.

But then he continues:

Vilenkin wrote:But if the fluctuations are not so wild as to invalidate classical spacetime, the BGV theorem is immune to any possible modifications of Einstein's equations which may be caused by quantum effects.

Craig pressed Vilenkin on this very issue and wrote him the following, asking for an explanation, which Vilenkin confirmed as an accurate description of the theorem:

Craig wrote: A ‘classical picture of spacetime’ should not be equated with general relativistic spacetime. For special relativistic spacetime, for example, also is a classical picture of spacetime. So the theorem does not presuppose general relativistic spacetime but simply a spacetime that is classical in the sense that it is linearly ordered temporally and so can be said to be expanding in the ‘later than’ direction. In any such spacetime a universe that is, on average, in a state of expansion can’t be past-eternal. But in a quantum gravity regime, if the linear ordering of time is abolished, then it is impossible to speak of expanding, and so the theorem’s one condition isn’t met. The question, then, is not one’s gravitational theory, but whether time exists in one’s model. Quantum gravity theories that do feature a linear temporal ordering fall under the theorem and so will not be past-eternal.

Note the emphasized.

Read the full blog here which was written as a response to a debate exchange between Lawrence Krauss and Craig in which Krauss had inaccruately quoted Vilenkin.

I think that's fair enough. The salient sentence in the blog is:

"What’s remarkable about the BGV theorem is that it makes only one assumption: that the universe is, on average, expanding throughout its history. The theorem won’t apply to models where that isn’t true."

And that's more or less what I said. I think we agree with each other really, as I find all the varieties of eternal universes philosophically unsatisfactory. However, it would be a mistake to imagine, as I'm sure you don't, that the BVG theorem proves that they are scientifically impossible.

RickD wrote:Are you saying Audie's arrogance and bullying is a cover up for her insecurities?

Now I think about it, not so much. Physically, sure.
Very insecure.
Hyperalert, easy to frighten.

Doesnt apply to a forum.

Actually, I am just out to hurt someone.

Talk to me x

hughfarey wrote:I think that's fair enough. The salient sentence in the blog is:

"What’s remarkable about the BGV theorem is that it makes only one assumption: that the universe is, on average, expanding throughout its history. The theorem won’t apply to models where that isn’t true."

And that's more or less what I said. I think we agree with each other really, as I find all the varieties of eternal universes philosophically unsatisfactory. However, it would be a mistake to imagine, as I'm sure you don't, that the BVG theorem proves that they are scientifically impossible.

I would never utter such nonsense as science proving anything (he says terrifyingly in light of Audie's post above, looking to hurt someone )