Evidence for God from Science

I gave one and another one was linked to

Where? I don't see it, and the link provided is not a refutation at all.

atheist wrote:

I gave one and another one was linked to

Where? I don't see it, and the link provided is not a refutation at all.

Why do we need to refute a strawman? Russel should know that this universe(and before we argue over its meaning, by universe, I mean our little piece of finite space/time) as we know it DOES have a beginning. In addition, it is up to Mr. Russel to provide us with proof that a singularity can "explode". We have many of those(black holes) yet none of them have turned into a big bang(mostly because it's physically impossible to dismantle a black hole without having the granddaddy of all gravitational forces shooting out of a ray gun). Whether you or any other atheist like it or not, there is something(or someone) outside the universe that triggered the big bang. Since SOMETHING must have always existed, we believe it was God. Atheists can come up with their little multiverse theories, but it always comes back to bite them in the ****. See this discussion for that little tidbit:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=253

Mastermind wrote:In addition, it is up to Mr. Russel to provide us with proof that a singularity can "explode". We have many of those(black holes) yet none of them have turned into a big bang(mostly because it's physically impossible to dismantle a black hole without having the granddaddy of all gravitational forces shooting out of a ray gun).

It's off-topic, but for general interest I thought I'd point out that it's not completely proven that black holes ultimately reduce themselves to singularities. All we know for sure is that the mass creating the gravitational force is smaller than the event horizon. It's entirely possible that, just as stars containing normal matter collapse to the nucleus level where we have neutron stars made of solid nulceus matter, some stars collapse to another more compact state (possibly made of solid quark material) in order to make the black hole. And what about other smaller particles that make quarks that we can't see? Quark stars are an area of active investigation... Since we can't see inside a black hole, we still aren't completely sure how they are structured.

If black holes do not reduce to a singularity, it makes it even easier for us since the laws of physics within it become predictable and none of them predict the possibility of a big bang.

Dan,

Let me try to comment your statements:

Statement 1: agreed
Statement 2: agreed
Statement 2 implications: incomplete.
Not necessarily there was a singularity with zero dimensions, and infinite density/temperature (impossible to describe). Going back in time, we can assume that the universe started with non-zero dimensions and at a time different from zero. Even the "pulsing universe" does not necessarily implies a singularity, therefore it cannot be discarded.

Statement 3: not necessarily the universe had an origin at time zero.

Statement 4: not necessarily there was a "beginning". Time could be existing without a zero.

Statement 5: does not consider all possibilities (as before).

Conclusion: again, the conclusion is incomplete (see above).

Alien wrote:Dan,

Let me try to comment your statements:

Statement 1: agreed
Statement 2: agreed
Statement 2 implications: incomplete.
Not necessarily there was a singularity with zero dimensions, and infinite density/temperature (impossible to describe). Going back in time, we can assume that the universe started with non-zero dimensions and at a time different from zero. Even the "pulsing universe" does not necessarily implies a singularity, therefore it cannot be discarded.

Statement 3: not necessarily the universe had an origin at time zero.

Statement 4: not necessarily there was a "beginning". Time could be existing without a zero.

Statement 5: does not consider all possibilities (as before).

Conclusion: again, the conclusion is incomplete (see above).

The Big Bang theory states that time came into existance during the big bang. And it was no a singularity, space is infinite however it is smaller as we turn back the clock, it gets more dense but it is still infinite. It was not a singularity because that would be a black hole, thus it would not have been able to be our universe.

Your argument is a strawman because it isn't the big bang theory accepted by science (inflationary cosmology).

Dan wrote:
The Big Bang theory states that time came into existance during the big bang.

no, just our dimension(s) of time.

And it was no a singularity, space is infinite however it is smaller as we turn back the clock, it gets more dense but it is still infinite. It was not a singularity because that would be a black hole, thus it would not have been able to be our universe.

Your argument is a strawman because it isn't the big bang theory accepted by science (inflationary cosmology).

Actually, there is no consensus on what the universe was like near the beginning. Most scientists say the laws break down and cannot know if there even was a singularity or not.

Mastermind wrote:

Dan wrote:
The Big Bang theory states that time came into existance during the big bang.

no, just our dimension(s) of time.

And it was no a singularity, space is infinite however it is smaller as we turn back the clock, it gets more dense but it is still infinite. It was not a singularity because that would be a black hole, thus it would not have been able to be our universe.

Your argument is a strawman because it isn't the big bang theory accepted by science (inflationary cosmology).

Actually, there is no consensus on what the universe was like near the beginning. Most scientists say the laws break down and cannot know if there even was a singularity or not.

By most you must be referring to Stephen Hawkings and the reason he postulates this is not because of empirical data, but because if the laws of physics were in break-down during the very first moments of the big bang, there would be no need to say time came into existence at the point. It basically is to avoid a creator.

On the contrary, most physicists say the laws of physics go into a state of supersymmetry where all the forces in nature (gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) are unified as one whole. This is the exact opposite of the laws breaking down, it is complete harmony and fluidity.

Dan wrote:On the contrary, most physicists say the laws of physics go into a state of supersymmetry where all the forces in nature (gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) are unified as one whole. This is the exact opposite of the laws breaking down, it is complete harmony and fluidity.

Actually, most physicists 'hope' that the all the forces were unified as a whole. Hence the push for a 'theory of everything' that will adequately describe the universe in its supposed very early and unified state.

The fact remains that right now neither Quantum physics nor Relativity hold up to what scientists think the early conditions of the Big Bang were. If they can find a theory that does not break down and that encapsulates both Quantum Physics and Relativity, then the hope is to be able to use that to explain how the universe was formed from the moments just after the big bang.

My point is that they're not there yet.

Felgar wrote:

Dan wrote:On the contrary, most physicists say the laws of physics go into a state of supersymmetry where all the forces in nature (gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) are unified as one whole. This is the exact opposite of the laws breaking down, it is complete harmony and fluidity.

Actually, most physicists 'hope' that the all the forces were unified as a whole. Hence the push for a 'theory of everything' that will adequately describe the universe in its supposed very early and unified state.

The fact remains that right now neither Quantum physics nor Relativity hold up to what scientists think the early conditions of the Big Bang were. If they can find a theory that does not break down and that encapsulates both Quantum Physics and Relativity, then the hope is to be able to use that to explain how the universe was formed from the moments just after the big bang.

My point is that they're not there yet.

You have a misunderstanding about the incompatibility of General Relativity and Quantum physics. It does not arise from the actual physics of the world. It arises from the conditions of the big bang.

General Relativity completely ignores all quantum phenomena in it's equations, that's because it was developed before quantum mechanics. When quantum mechanics and general relativity are put together, their equations don't bring up anything. That's because general relativity is classical and quantum physics basically change most notions of classical physics.

Currently, there are several attempts at quantizing gravity, converting it into a framework that exists within quantum physics and still agrees with observational data that general relativity conforms to. The most promising one is superstring theory which basically renders the problems between quantum physics and general relativity irrelevant. However the equations have not been determined yet (only approximations of the simplest equations have been developed) because they are monumentally difficult.

Pretty much our lack of understanding makes us assume the laws of physics break down, but there really is no reason for them to break down like that (gravity basically malfunctioning). The electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force have been theoretically proven (not by experimental data directly though) to be the same at very early times and it's been theorized that this electroweak force is rendered indistuingishable from the strong nuclear force at an even earlier time. The only reason gravity is not incorporated into this symmetry is because gravity has not been converted into a quantum field theory. But it will be eventually.

I am corresponding with a friend who has a PhD in physics and according to her string theory has far too many holes and will eventually be dropped. Since string theory basically works against a God and she's an atheist, I see no reason not to believe her.

In what way does string theory work against God?

Kurieuo.

Dan wrote:Pretty much our lack of understanding makes us assume the laws of physics break down, but there really is no reason for them to break down like that (gravity basically malfunctioning).

The only reason gravity is not incorporated into this symmetry is because gravity has not been converted into a quantum field theory. But it will be eventually.

I disagree. Obviously you can't model the conditions at the early moments of the big bang without including the force of gravity because that force is dominant (or at least very signifigant) as all matter in the universe is condensed into a very small space.

So then we're left with relativity and when you attempt to solve the equations of relativity in those conditions they simpy 'break' - in that the equations equate to impossibilities and nonsense.

So in that sense they're both broken - Quantum physics because it can't model gravity, and relativity because it just doesn't work to model those conditions.

And as far a M-Theory goes, there are a lot of scientists that hold to the idea that M-Theory can never disproven, as there are yet to be any predictions based off of it, and there may never be. If a theory cannot yield meaningful and testable predictions then really it's not science at all - it's philosophy.

P.S. Please note that I'm not even a proponent of the Big Bang at all, even though it sounds like I'm defiending it here. I'm speaking in the sense that scientists start with accepting the Big Bang. It's going to take a lot more evidence to convince me that God didn't just make the universe much like it is now. And when they launch the next generation of telescopes it will be funny when they see something from like 30 Billion Light years.

Dan wrote: The Big Bang theory states that time came into existance during the big bang. And it was no a singularity, space is infinite however it is smaller as we turn back the clock, it gets more dense but it is still infinite. It was not a singularity because that would be a black hole, thus it would not have been able to be our universe.

Your argument is a strawman because it isn't the big bang theory accepted by science (inflationary cosmology).

I am simply saying that the name "Big Bang" for the theory is a bit misleading and out-of-date.

There are other theories (that could be called "Big Bang" as well, if you like) that do not consider at all the presence of a singularity. Avoiding this singularity is useful because it avoids the problem of modelling it.

I know about at least other four of them:

1) the universe started as an object of finite dimensions (therefore no infinite density), and space-time started at the same time

2) the universe started as an object of finite dimensions (therefore no infinite density), as a result of a previous contraction. In this case there is no time = zero.

3) the universe was a static object, since ever existing, with finite dimensions (therefore no infinite density), and at a certain time it started to expand. In this case there is no time = zero.

4) the universe exists and expands since ever (if you go back in time, its dimensions become smaller and smaller but never zero. In this case there is no time = zero.


What I don't understand is when you say that "space is infinite". The universe is not and was not infinite. The universe has no border, no edge, but it is finite.

Its density would become infinite if its dimensions become zero (therefore volume = 0, therefore density = mass/volume tends to infinite), and this is the singularity that is not modellable.

Felgar wrote:

Dan wrote:Pretty much our lack of understanding makes us assume the laws of physics break down, but there really is no reason for them to break down like that (gravity basically malfunctioning).

The only reason gravity is not incorporated into this symmetry is because gravity has not been converted into a quantum field theory. But it will be eventually.

I disagree. Obviously you can't model the conditions at the early moments of the big bang without including the force of gravity because that force is dominant (or at least very signifigant) as all matter in the universe is condensed into a very small space.

So then we're left with relativity and when you attempt to solve the equations of relativity in those conditions they simpy 'break' - in that the equations equate to impossibilities and nonsense.

So in that sense they're both broken - Quantum physics because it can't model gravity, and relativity because it just doesn't work to model those conditions.

And as far a M-Theory goes, there are a lot of scientists that hold to the idea that M-Theory can never disproven, as there are yet to be any predictions based off of it, and there may never be. If a theory cannot yield meaningful and testable predictions then really it's not science at all - it's philosophy.

P.S. Please note that I'm not even a proponent of the Big Bang at all, even though it sounds like I'm defiending it here. I'm speaking in the sense that scientists start with accepting the Big Bang. It's going to take a lot more evidence to convince me that God didn't just make the universe much like it is now. And when they launch the next generation of telescopes it will be funny when they see something from like 30 Billion Light years.

M-Theory DOES predict things. In fact, when the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is completed in the upcoming years, M-Theory will be put to the test. It predicts particles that <i>might</i> exist at energies that the large hadron collider can produce. If they are found, the theory holds true. In the upcoming decades, M-Theory will be even more testable because once the equations are figured out, it will predict several things.

The poster below Felgar:

Really? The only cosmological origin theory that I can think of that has an eternal time is Plasma Cosmology and that makes little sense to me.

The origin of the universe NEEDS time to start because if it never started than entropy would take over. Even if the universe were to "restart" so to speak because of cataclysmic events, the entropy would still increase and so the universe COULDN'T be eternal.

That is, unless you want to except the possibility that your memories don't exist, all records of past events are unreliable, and the entire universe in this current state materialized randomly as a mathematical curiosity