Evidence for God from Science

BryanH wrote:

If something indeed exists "outside" spacetime, it can only be something nonspatial, nonmaterial and nontemporal (remember: no space, no time). Whatever it is, it's the direct opposite of natural.

How do you know that? Now really...

How do I know that? Pretty much all naturalist astrophysicists say there is NOTHING outside the universe, because the term universe itself denotes "everything that exists in the natural world". When someone starts talking about the "outside" they immediately get labelled as creationist wackos, because the term in itself implies the supernatural. I fear you still may not get this, so I'll put this as simple as I can:

1. Universe is everything that exists in the natural world.
2. Therefore, if there exists something "outside" Universe - it must be supernatural, due to point 1.

And I don't understand what you mean by "we don't know yet". We know pretty clearly that space is the 3d expanse in which objects take up volume and have relative position to each other. Time is the measure of duration between events in space. Quite simple. Now imagine if we take that away - objects cannot take up spatial dimensions and have volume, which is a key prerequisite of matter. If something does not take up spatial dimensions and does not consist of matter, it is not natural, simply because of the reason that you yourself mentioned - there are no such things in our universe. If that's not the simplest form of common sense, I don't know what is.

Universe is everything that exists in the natural world.

This is an assumption based on perception only. The theory of multiple universes is a point to start with.

Now imagine if we take that away - objects cannot take up spatial dimensions and have volume, which is a key prerequisite of matter. If something does not take up spatial dimensions and does not consist of matter, it is not natural, simply because of the reason that you yourself mentioned - there are no such things in our universe. If that's not the simplest form of common sense, I don't know what is.

If you take Einstein's word for it, matter is not actually matter but energy so we still have a lot to learn.

there are no such things in our universe. If that's not the simplest form of common sense, I don't know what is

How do you know that? Have you explored the whole universe?
I may be reaching too far to grasp... but your common sense is missing as well. Don't make assumptions about the universe. You don't even know how the universe was created and you are saying to me that you know for sure that " Universe is everything that exists in the natural world."

There may be something beyond the universe... Who knows...

One should always be careful when speaking in absolutes in regards to science.
The most anyone can ever say is that, "based on our current understanding..."
Beyond that, it is silly and arrogant to think that we know NOW all that there is to know.
Look at what science knew 1000 years ago, look at what science knew 200 years ago, look at what science tells us now and imagine what we will know 1000 years from now.

Well, I'm simply telling you what any non-creationist scientist would say - Universe is the sum of all natural things. Only that which is understood as supernatural can even hypothetically exist "outside". I thought you agreed with mainstream science?

What is your definition of "natural" anyway? Where is the line that you'd draw and say - nope, that's definitely supernatural?

I'm not proposing anything mysterious or basing anything on the unknown. I'm giving you a fact: spatial objects cannot exist without spatial dimensions. Matter cannot exist unless there are spatial dimensions to support its volume. Energy cannot exist unless there are spatial dimensions to support work on physical systems.

These are all established scientific truths and they are not going to change in a sudden breakthrough. Would you expect that for example gravity as a fundamental law would someday be undermined? By what could something that we experience every single moment of our existence be undermined?

Now imagine something that does not require spatial dimensions. Imagine something non-spatial and non-material and non-temporal. Just imagine something that fits these criteria and yet somehow complies with the very basic natural laws - is affected by gravitation and electromagnetic force. You cannot imagine that because it's counterintuitive. In order for something to be affected by gravity, it has to be composed of matter. So, if it is not affected by even the most basic of the natural laws, why then would it be considered natural?

What we view as " natural" is limited to OUR understanding as natural.
My point is that we shouldn't make absolute comments in regards to science and we should say, " based on our current understanding..." because that is the most honest answer we can ever give.
Remember, all that we KNOW now is limited to how we understand NOW.
In the past everyone KNEW that man couldn't go into space, they KNEW that no virgin could be pregnant, they KNEW that man couldn't travel faster than the speed of sound, they KNEW so many things that we KNOW NOW to NOT be the case.
My point is that so much that we KNOW NOW may just be proven to NOT be the case in the future.
The law of gravity is applicable to our KNOWN universe, can it one day be found to NOT be applicable in some part of our universe? perhaps.
Can we one day find a parallel dimension, ie: a different universe, in which our laws of physics do NOT apply? Perhaps.

Point being that we do not know what we will view as "natural" 100 years from now, much less 1000 or 1 000 000

Okay. So non-spatial, timeless beings are not supernatural but natural. Great! God is natural. Congrats, you're now a theist.

Seriously though, who in the world argues that God is not a supernatural entity??? To me it's amazing we're having this discussion at all...

Alright, for the sake of argument, define me what is supernatural to you? I don't care if you think supernatural things do not exist. Purely hypothetically, what is supernatural in your understanding? What characteristics does it have?

Neige wrote:Okay. So non-spatial, timeless beings are not supernatural but natural. Great! God is natural. Congrats, you're now a theist.

Seriously though, who in the world argues that God is not a supernatural entity??? To me it's amazing we're having this discussion at all...

Alright, for the sake of argument, define me what is supernatural to you? I don't care if you think supernatural things do not exist. Purely hypothetically, what is supernatural in your understanding? What characteristics does it have?

Supernatural is anything outside our current understanding of how the natural word works.
EX: a virgin having a child was supernatural 2000 years ago, but today is NOT viewed as such since science can do that.
God is supernatural based on our current understanding of the natural universe as we know it.
That may not be the case 1000 years from now.
That is simply my point.

I think part of what Neige is trying to get across is that there are some respects in which the statement "we don't know yet" doesn't really apply. Saying, for instance, that a universe cannot arise naturally out of pure nonbeing is not something at all likely to be contradicted by future discovery, even with all the weird stuff we see in Quantum Mechanics. Scientists were shocked, for example at the seemingly counterintuitive nature of the way particles behave and the way virtual particles arise from the sea of energy underlying a vacuum, but this doesn't come anywhere near the level of "something from nothing". Advances in science may change our understanding of the universe and nature, but certain logical principles like the law of noncontradiction don't stand to be overturned.

Icthus wrote:I think part of what Neige is trying to get across is that there are some respects in which the statement "we don't know yet" doesn't really apply. Saying, for instance, that a universe cannot arise naturally out of pure nonbeing is not something at all likely to be contradicted by future discovery, even with all the weird stuff we see in Quantum Mechanics. Scientists were shocked, for example at the seemingly counterintuitive nature of the way particles behave and the way virtual particles arise from the sea of energy underlying a vacuum, but this doesn't come anywhere near the level of "something from nothing". Advances in science may change our understanding of the universe and nature, but certain logical principles like the law of noncontradiction don't stand to be overturned.

Within this universe, perhaps.
There is no reason to think that or nay other and that is why the "multi-universe" hypothesis was developed (amongst other things).
I agree that something can't come from nothing BUT if the universe as we know it and ALL that goes with it ( including time as we know it) had a beginning, then something must have caused it and as such, that something was NOT of this universe and as such, the laws of THIS universe would NOT apply top it.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Icthus wrote:I think part of what Neige is trying to get across is that there are some respects in which the statement "we don't know yet" doesn't really apply. Saying, for instance, that a universe cannot arise naturally out of pure nonbeing is not something at all likely to be contradicted by future discovery, even with all the weird stuff we see in Quantum Mechanics. Scientists were shocked, for example at the seemingly counterintuitive nature of the way particles behave and the way virtual particles arise from the sea of energy underlying a vacuum, but this doesn't come anywhere near the level of "something from nothing". Advances in science may change our understanding of the universe and nature, but certain logical principles like the law of noncontradiction don't stand to be overturned.

Within this universe, perhaps.
There is no reason to think that or nay other and that is why the "multi-universe" hypothesis was developed (amongst other things).
I agree that something can't come from nothing BUT if the universe as we know it and ALL that goes with it ( including time as we know it) had a beginning, then something must have caused it and as such, that something was NOT of this universe and as such, the laws of THIS universe would NOT apply top it.

Paul even with the multiverse theory there still must be a beginning because of the borde-guth-vilenkin theorem.

Why would anyone make an assumption that matter and time had a beginning?
What exactly have scientists observed for them to assert that matter and time had to have a beginning?

The extent of scientific observation shows everything flying away from a center point. Ok I got that... something caused matter to 'begin' to fly outward from a central point. Does this automatically mean that matters very existence had to begin at that central point? This is an assumption.
What is causing their assumption is they can't envision that anything / anyone else existed that could energize primordial matter that would have been in a state of thermal equilibrium and caused it to gather and begin moving in the already existing space and time.
Most people don't quite get the possible meaning in Genesis 1:2;

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Earth had no 'form'... Without energy above equilibrium matter would have no form it would most likely be what science is calling dark matter which is probably the constituents of matter that are at thermal equilibrium. Now here is the important part;

"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"... God was imparting energy into the primordial de-energized constituents of matter. Once being raised to an energized level then the laws of physics would begin to function, gravitational pull would begin and energized matter as we know it would begin its long road back to its natural state of thermal equilibrium.

God is light... God is living energy, he has imparted matter with energy that is not a natural state for it. Everything that we consider existing in the natural world is in a process of releasing energy. Matter as we envision it in the atomic structures is really varying collections of energy levels which we can discern in its lowest form as hydrogen and its highest form as uranium.

Everything we have ever observed is unnatural. how do I know that? If it was natural then there would be no observable law of thermodynamics. This law defines that all matter is releasing energy constantly so it is entirely logical to assert that an energized state is not a natural state in this universe. Thermal equilibrium is, and we are all watching it return from whence it came.

KBCid wrote:Why would anyone make an assumption that matter and time had a beginning?
What exactly have scientists observed for them to assert that matter and time had to have a beginning?

Philosophy, reason tell us there is either infinite regress, which is absurd, or there is an uncaused first cause.

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Icthus wrote:I think part of what Neige is trying to get across is that there are some respects in which the statement "we don't know yet" doesn't really apply. Saying, for instance, that a universe cannot arise naturally out of pure nonbeing is not something at all likely to be contradicted by future discovery, even with all the weird stuff we see in Quantum Mechanics. Scientists were shocked, for example at the seemingly counterintuitive nature of the way particles behave and the way virtual particles arise from the sea of energy underlying a vacuum, but this doesn't come anywhere near the level of "something from nothing". Advances in science may change our understanding of the universe and nature, but certain logical principles like the law of noncontradiction don't stand to be overturned.

Within this universe, perhaps.
There is no reason to think that or nay other and that is why the "multi-universe" hypothesis was developed (amongst other things).
I agree that something can't come from nothing BUT if the universe as we know it and ALL that goes with it ( including time as we know it) had a beginning, then something must have caused it and as such, that something was NOT of this universe and as such, the laws of THIS universe would NOT apply top it.

Paul even with the multiverse theory there still must be a beginning because of the borde-guth-vilenkin theorem.

Sure, if every universe is dependent on "time" as we know it.
Seems that,perhaps , Heaven ( as we call it) is a "universe" or "dimension" where most of our laws don't seem to apply, including the passing of time as we know it.
I always found it funny how some atheists believe that the multi-universe theory dispels the notion of God when, according to the bible, there is a "alternate universe" or "plane of existence", two actually - Heaven and Hell.

Alright, for the sake of argument, define me what is supernatural to you? I don't care if you think supernatural things do not exist. Purely hypothetically, what is supernatural in your understanding? What characteristics does it have?

Supernatural is the same as "nothing". It is an arbitrary concept that relates to things that we don't understand.

Basically you are saying that we shouldn't bother understanding some things because they are beyond our level of comprehension anyways.

I don't think like that. Sorry.

Professor John Lennox in his book, 'God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?' spends about 100 pages dissecting philosopher David Hume's argument that miracles are violations of the laws of nature and argues that Hume is dead wrong. It's probably worth your while to read what Lennox states about Super Nature.