Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

And it is entirely unscientific and metaphysical! I could more appreciate an atheist asserting, at the very least, that the ULTIMATE origin of physical things was eternal, intelligent, and all-powerful - EVEN IF they also insist this is not the God of the Bible. Because at least that is recognizing parameters and logic.

Phil, just to put my two cents here, if you had perhaps given some heed to what I said earlier in our brief convo, is that at QM matter pops out of literally, nothing. Its not big, intelligent etc etc. It goes against our standard logic but we do know it happens. And that is why our resident atheist is not seeing it your way, and me neither. So what you are saying becomes a weak argument.

In other words what you are appealing to and driving your logic from is a Newtonian notion of cause and effect and at QM it becomes obsolete, it doesn't work, the parameters you refer to don't apply anymore.

What is QM?

Quantum Mechanics, is the study of the dynamics of sub-atomic particles. At that scale our normal rules of physics don't apply.
Even in complete nothingness/Vaccum, sub-atomic virtual particles pop up and then disappear. what originates them is not fully understood or known but it does amount to real quantum energy so this isn't purely a theoretical thought or a mathematical construct which is abstract. Thus, real.

As has been stated it depends on your definition of "nothing"
Nothing will turn out to be something.

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

And it is entirely unscientific and metaphysical! I could more appreciate an atheist asserting, at the very least, that the ULTIMATE origin of physical things was eternal, intelligent, and all-powerful - EVEN IF they also insist this is not the God of the Bible. Because at least that is recognizing parameters and logic.

Phil, just to put my two cents here, if you had perhaps given some heed to what I said earlier in our brief convo, is that at QM matter pops out of literally, nothing. Its not big, intelligent etc etc. It goes against our standard logic but we do know it happens. And that is why our resident atheist is not seeing it your way, and me neither. So what you are saying becomes a weak argument.

In other words what you are appealing to and driving your logic from is a Newtonian notion of cause and effect and at QM it becomes obsolete, it doesn't work, the parameters you refer to don't apply anymore.

What is QM?

Quantum Mechanics, is the study of the dynamics of sub-atomic particles. At that scale our normal rules of physics don't apply.
Even in complete nothingness/Vaccum, sub-atomic virtual particles pop up and then disappear. what originates them is not fully understood or known but it does amount to real quantum energy so this isn't purely a theoretical thought or a mathematical construct which is abstract. Thus, real.

As has been stated it depends on your definition of "nothing"
Nothing will turn out to be something.

But as I was saying you can even mean nothingness as truly nothingness/complete vaccuum and still get quantum particles doing minor fluctuations. So it really doesn't matter how you define it, you still get the same thing.

EDIT: And while all of this detail is to prove the point further still, my main point still stands that what we observe in the normal world doesn't hold in the quantum one, where the singularity began. So just by appealing to principles we observe in the regular world we can't appeal to BB or an origin in the QM.

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:
Phil, just to put my two cents here, if you had perhaps given some heed to what I said earlier in our brief convo, is that at QM matter pops out of literally, nothing. Its not big, intelligent etc etc. It goes against our standard logic but we do know it happens. And that is why our resident atheist is not seeing it your way, and me neither. So what you are saying becomes a weak argument.

In other words what you are appealing to and driving your logic from is a Newtonian notion of cause and effect and at QM it becomes obsolete, it doesn't work, the parameters you refer to don't apply anymore.

What is QM?

Quantum Mechanics, is the study of the dynamics of sub-atomic particles. At that scale our normal rules of physics don't apply.
Even in complete nothingness/Vaccum, sub-atomic virtual particles pop up and then disappear. what originates them is not fully understood or known but it does amount to real quantum energy so this isn't purely a theoretical thought or a mathematical construct which is abstract. Thus, real.

As has been stated it depends on your definition of "nothing"
Nothing will turn out to be something.

But as I was saying you can even mean nothingness as truly nothingness/complete vaccuum and still get quantum particles doing minor fluctuations. So it really doesn't matter how you define it, you still get the same thing.

EDIT: my point still stands, what we observe in the normal world doesn't hold in the quantum one, where the singularity began. So just by appealing to principles we observe in the regular world we can't appeal to BB or an origin in the QM.

I dont understand why something greater than the universe (multiverse)
that was "always" there is easier to believe than that what came "before"
the universe doesn not have to be supernatural, or for that matter,
isnt real enough, however beyond our understanding.

As for just appealing to the familiar for reference, even what little is understood about physics has such a way of being counter intuitive and boggling the mind! At that, we probably have hardly scratched the surface of true weirdness.

Hooray for confusing material and efficient causality.

Jac: Hooray for confusing material and efficient causality.

Exactly!

Neo: But as I was saying you can even mean nothingness as truly nothingness/complete vaccuum and still get quantum particles doing minor fluctuations. So it really doesn't matter how you define it, you still get the same thing. EDIT: And while all of this detail is to prove the point further still, my main point still stands that what we observe in the normal world doesn't hold in the quantum one, where the singularity began. So just by appealing to principles we observe in the regular world we can't appeal to BB or an origin in the QM.

Neo, what you assert is irrelevant for the point I am making - and that is, ALL things ULTIMATELY have a source - EVEN IF you do not see them. And, as a theist, you must believe that. The GAP is in our understanding of how God did these things. But you ultimately have the same problem that needs a source. One can speculate all day long that there IS no source just because you can't physically or otherwise quantify and prove it. But speculation of such is metaphysics. The other issue I have with what you seem to do is dismiss what Scripture says about these things. That and the fact that you are all hung up over gaps in understandings and seem upset at suggestions that God might have programmed (with considerable randomness with abilities of the things created), or tweaked them or whatever. I don't care in what dimension, whether we can see it, measure it, or whatever - as their must be some ULTIMATE force that is eternal, of great intelligence, and immense power. Plus, Neo, you say you believe in Christ - do you doubt what He has confirmed (the entire OT!)? I really don't see the benefit of what you're arguing for. On one hand you assert a Creator God, but on the other one, you insist He is not necessary to explain extraordinary things that must ULTIMATELY be traced back to some previous source - whether physical or spiritual: your choice! I find your logic to be exceptionally obscure.

To add: And when these supposedly uncaused things appear, what do they reveal? Design and functionality! And immediately so! Which unquestionably means the source was intelligent!

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:No fossils that show different kinds of life than the life in this world is evidence of the former world that perished and it is exactly what we should find in the earth if there was indeed a former world that perished,like a prediction and it confirms this interpretation is right,which confirms the bible true.

I do wish you'ld make some attempt to make your syntax more conventional. Sentences like this really are quite difficult to get to the bottom of. I'll have a go, but sorry if I misrepresent you.

1) Ancient fossils do not resemble living organisms. By and large this is true. As species come and go continuously, lasting only a few million years, the geological column shows continuous change.

2) This is evidence that all ancient organisms perished in a sudden cataclysm. Well, of course it isn't. It is very good evidence that species appear and disappear on and off continuously throughout the history of organic life.

3) This shows that the global flood hypothesis is correct. No it doesn't. It shows a gradual change in the variety of organisms over millions of years.

4) This confirms the bible is true. No it doesn't do that either. At least, I should say that it doesn't confirm your own rather idiosyncratic version of the meaning of the bible. Fortunately, the truth of the bible does not depend on the literal occurrence or not of many of the events described in it, nor on anyone's individual interpretation of it.

The ice experiment only has to do with Noah's flood,plus the dust too that shows a drought happened at the time of Noah's flood showing that the ice survived the flood.

No it doesn't. Floods are wet. Droughts are dry. Your drought could only have occurred before or after the flood, not at the same time. Please specify, as whenever it occurred, it is strong evidence that the biblical flood didn't.

Now where is your evidence life evolves?

As above, in some detail.

Come on and admit it,the Gap Theory is a much better theory based on the evidence than the ToE.

The evidence? What evidence? The fact that ice can remain stuck to the bottom of a glass? Is that evidence of a global flood? The claim that although there is no evidence whatever for global inundation, layers of drought dust here and there around the world shows it must have happened? You are joking, surely?

Why wouldn't you want to know about this lost world?

I do want to know about the lost world. I've been asking you about it for months. Sadly you don't seem to know anything about it. No evidence for it. No evidence for its catastrophic end. Nix. What a pity.

Based on Occam's razor I have given more evidence than you have. I cannot change your mind,you can ignore the evidence I've given for what I believe,which you have not done yet you still choose to look at the evidence in the earth from an evolution viewpoint,when you nor any scientist has ever given evidence that demonstrates life evolves. My evidence for the former world is simple,it is the fossils that show the different kind of life that lived in it until it perished.Since you have no evidence that even comes close to demonstrating life evolves you should not continue to look at the fossil evidence from that perspective, yet you choose to,which I can do nothing about. Instead of looking at the fossils as if life evolves for which there is no evidence to show it does,just look at the evidence from a lost world perspective instead.See the life that lived in the former world,it's really easy to do.
It had dinosaurs,hominids,trilobites,wooly mammoths,giant deer,sabre tooth cats,etc that lived in the former world.
The fossils don't help evolution anyway because all fossils found only show fully formed creatures that once lived and died and none show any transition or anything that would lead anybody to believe the life was evolving,you're adding evolution imagination into the fossil evidence.

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

And it is entirely unscientific and metaphysical! I could more appreciate an atheist asserting, at the very least, that the ULTIMATE origin of physical things was eternal, intelligent, and all-powerful - EVEN IF they also insist this is not the God of the Bible. Because at least that is recognizing parameters and logic.

Phil, just to put my two cents here, if you had perhaps given some heed to what I said earlier in our brief convo, is that at QM matter pops out of literally, nothing. Its not big, intelligent etc etc. It goes against our standard logic but we do know it happens. And that is why our resident atheist is not seeing it your way, and me neither. So what you are saying becomes a weak argument.

In other words what you are appealing to and driving your logic from is a Newtonian notion of cause and effect and at QM it becomes obsolete, it doesn't work, the parameters you refer to don't apply anymore.

What is QM?

Quantum Mechanics, is the study of the dynamics of sub-atomic particles. At that scale our normal rules of physics don't apply.
Even in complete nothingness/Vaccum, sub-atomic virtual particles pop up and then disappear. what originates them is not fully understood or known but it does amount to real quantum energy so this isn't purely a theoretical thought or a mathematical construct which is abstract. Thus, real.

As has been stated it depends on your definition of "nothing"
Nothing will turn out to be something.

This notion that nothing can come from something is flat out wrong as this eminent philosopher of quantum mechanics puts it .

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/bo ... rauss.html

abelcainsbrother wrote:

The fossils don't help evolution anyway because all fossils found only show fully formed creatures

Does anyone in science ever speak of organisms that are not fully formed?

Of course there are only fully formed organisms, not, what, partly formed..?
Is that the reason you say there is no evidence?

Describe such a thing, if you would. What might a "not fully formed" or, "partly formed" creature look like? How can you tell if it is or is not fully formed?

Anyone else who has an idea of what a "not fully formed" creature might look like is encouraged to say.

If I remember right, it is thought that it was half a billion years or so before the universe cooled enough for atoms to start forming.

Is that "immediate"?

No fully formed creatures in the fossil record, monkeys are still around, evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, and it only works from stacking up genetic mutations, aka birth defects, anyway, which is obviously dumb. So there you go. You guys just need to get off this God-hating-EVILution-kick, then, because science.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Based on Occam's razor I have given more evidence than you have.

Eh? Occam's Razor is not a philosophy that says less evidence is better than more.

I cannot change your mind

I'm afraid that's probably true, not because you have no convincing evidence and not because of my obduracy, but because you have no idea how to express yourself coherently.

you can ignore the evidence I've given for what I believe

I have not ignored your evidence. I have studied it carefully and explained why I don't accept it.

which you have not done yet

I have not done what, exactly? This makes no sense at all.

you still choose to look at the evidence in the earth from an evolution viewpoint

Wrong again. You haven't read my earlier post at all, have you?

when you nor any scientist has ever given evidence that demonstrates life evolves.

Yes, I have, in some detail, in a post of a few hours ago. Why are you pretending I haven't?

My evidence for the former world is simple,it is the fossils that show the different kind of life that lived in it until it perished.

I have reviewed your evidence, above, and explained why I find it wanting. If there is something about my explanation you disagree with, please point it out.

Since you have no evidence that even comes close to demonstrating life evolves you should not continue to look at the fossil evidence from that perspective, yet you choose to,which I can do nothing about.

This is culpably false. I explained at length why the evidence I presented persuaded me of the truth of evolution. If you want to do something about it, take it in small quotes, as I am doing with this post of yours, and say where you think I am wrong.

Instead of looking at the fossils as if life evolves for which there is no evidence to show it does,just look at the evidence from a lost world perspective instead.

I have done. I reviewed your evidence carefully, but found it not only unconvincing, but factually false and logically inconsistent.

See the life that lived in the former world,it's really easy to do. It had dinosaurs,hominids,trilobites,wooly mammoths,giant deer,sabre tooth cats,etc that lived in the former world.

This is just silly. Dinosaurs and woolly mammoths were not contemporaneous, and there is abundant evidence to demonstrate that.

The fossils don't help evolution anyway because all fossils found only show fully formed creatures that once lived and died

You really have no idea what evolution is about, do you? Living creatures are almost invariably fully formed.

and none show any transition or anything that would lead anybody to believe the life was evolving

Yes, they do, often.

you're adding evolution imagination into the fossil evidence.

Oh, dear me, abelcainsbrother, back to the same old tub-thumping, as if you haven't actually read any of my previous posts. Why not try to move on? If you disagree with any of the points I have made, quote them and explain why. Don't just revert to this fingers-in-ears "La-La-La-I can't hear you" sort of response. That seriously weakens any credibility you may have.

Jac3510 wrote:No fully formed creatures in the fossil record, monkeys are still around, evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, and it only works from stacking up genetic mutations, aka birth defects, anyway, which is obviously dumb. So there you go. You guys just need to get off this God-hating-EVILution-kick, then, because science.

None of this makes any sense at all. Is it some kind of argument for something? If so, what?

hughfarey wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:No fully formed creatures in the fossil record, monkeys are still around, evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, and it only works from stacking up genetic mutations, aka birth defects, anyway, which is obviously dumb. So there you go. You guys just need to get off this God-hating-EVILution-kick, then, because science.

None of this makes any sense at all. Is it some kind of argument for something? If so, what?

It's an argument for the effectiveness of sarcasm.

Fooled you Hugh!

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Based on Occam's razor I have given more evidence than you have.

Eh? Occam's Razor is not a philosophy that says less evidence is better than more.

I cannot change your mind

I'm afraid that's probably true, not because you have no convincing evidence and not because of my obduracy, but because you have no idea how to express yourself coherently.

you can ignore the evidence I've given for what I believe

I have not ignored your evidence. I have studied it carefully and explained why I don't accept it.

which you have not done yet

I have not done what, exactly? This makes no sense at all.

you still choose to look at the evidence in the earth from an evolution viewpoint

Wrong again. You haven't read my earlier post at all, have you?

when you nor any scientist has ever given evidence that demonstrates life evolves.

Yes, I have, in some detail, in a post of a few hours ago. Why are you pretending I haven't?

My evidence for the former world is simple,it is the fossils that show the different kind of life that lived in it until it perished.

I have reviewed your evidence, above, and explained why I find it wanting. If there is something about my explanation you disagree with, please point it out.

Since you have no evidence that even comes close to demonstrating life evolves you should not continue to look at the fossil evidence from that perspective, yet you choose to,which I can do nothing about.

This is culpably false. I explained at length why the evidence I presented persuaded me of the truth of evolution. If you want to do something about it, take it in small quotes, as I am doing with this post of yours, and say where you think I am wrong.

Instead of looking at the fossils as if life evolves for which there is no evidence to show it does,just look at the evidence from a lost world perspective instead.

I have done. I reviewed your evidence carefully, but found it not only unconvincing, but factually false and logically inconsistent.

See the life that lived in the former world,it's really easy to do. It had dinosaurs,hominids,trilobites,wooly mammoths,giant deer,sabre tooth cats,etc that lived in the former world.

This is just silly. Dinosaurs and woolly mammoths were not contemporaneous, and there is abundant evidence to demonstrate that.

The fossils don't help evolution anyway because all fossils found only show fully formed creatures that once lived and died

You really have no idea what evolution is about, do you? Living creatures are almost invariably fully formed.

and none show any transition or anything that would lead anybody to believe the life was evolving

Yes, they do, often.

you're adding evolution imagination into the fossil evidence.

Oh, dear me, abelcainsbrother, back to the same old tub-thumping, as if you haven't actually read any of my previous posts. Why not try to move on? If you disagree with any of the points I have made, quote them and explain why. Don't just revert to this fingers-in-ears "La-La-La-I can't hear you" sort of response. That seriously weakens any credibility you may have.

"Almost invariably fully formed:? Huh? Prease exprain.

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:QM matter pops out of literally, nothing.

That's not actually true.

Could you list your objection in a little more detail, K. thanks.

A quantum vacuum isn't literally nothing.