Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:
God, on the other hand, as the prime unmoved mover and uncaused cause, is the necessary conclusion of a logical set of premises. I certainly hope you can see the difference.

Another recent approach reveals some remarkable properties of the fabric of space-time.3 Instead of trying to develop an overarching theory that incorporates both gravity and quantum mechanics, this alternative approach seeks to build from scratch––using basic quantum mechanical principles––a space-time structure resembling this universe. Such a process ensures the outcome obeys quantum mechanics, while allowing the number and shape of the dimensions to unfold rather than be specified.

Initially, researchers simply started with some representative four-dimensional building blocks of space-time, then allowed them to interact under simple gravitational and quantum mechanical rules, and finally observed the outcome. With no additional input, the results ended at one of two different outcomes—neither of which resembled the stable four-dimensional universe in which we live.

Scientists derived two important conclusions from this work. First, the dimensionality of space is not a fixed quantity. Instead, dimensionality can fluctuate and change depending on how the fundamental constituents of space-time assemble. Second, large, smooth, four-dimensional universes like this one are not stable under these rules.

Realizing that something was lacking in their modeling studies, scientists searched for that missing component. They discovered that adding one simple building block––causality––to the structure resulted in stable, four-dimensional universes. In other words, if the interactions were required to operate such that time always progressed in a single direction, the quantum fluctuations of curvature did cancel out on large scales to produce “normal”-looking universes. Furthermore, the overall results remained unchanged even as a variety of small details changed.

The implications of this research are far-reaching. The arrow of time that allows us to distinguish the past from the future derives from something outside of space and time. Stated another way, something beyond this universe encoded cause and effect into the very fabric of space-time.

MBPrata wrote:
It's not us who are making "a case full unexplained stuff", quite the opposite


You shouldn't dodge the unexplained stuff the Bible - and Christianity - don't explain. The same way atheists shouldn't dodge the unexplained stuff Atheism doesn't explain. Personally, each I think more that we, humans, should admit that we're helpless scared beings who know nothing about what reality is. But that's just me, I guess...


Funny you use the word 'dodge'. Where, pray tell, in anything I said or referenced, anything at all, did I mention Christianity or the Bible? I dare you to go back and quote me on that.

MBPrata wrote:
I know, I also didn't see a lot of pictures of it. I have, however, read one or two testimonies from diffent types of people (some of which were scientists) claiming it does look like a pyramid. One of them, if I recall, even comented how mysterious and strange Ceres seems to be...which sounds creepy for something designed by a good God. But maybe that's just me...

MBPrata wrote:As most of us know (I guess...), a pyramid has been discovered in the surface of Ceres. This is weird enough as it is. Now, here's the deal: from the christian perspective, God designed our solar system. So...could it be that He designed it to the point of "making" a pyramid in Ceres? Sounds really far-fetched, doesn't it? There seems to be no reason to do that, unless scientist suddenly find out that the pyramid is essencial to prevent Ceres from crashing in our planet. Which I doubt...

As a former christian, I can't help thinking this pyramid is one more of the millions of evidence that we have that intelligence isn't needed to do something intelligent and/or design-like. We have examples of that in outer space, underwater, Earth's mountains, ridiculous coincidences in our daily life...with all these examplkes, it just seems utterly fantasious for us to think that our universe was designed when it might as well be a blind creation (which would explain a lot).

Thoughts?

Just because a scientist makes a comment, it doesn't necessarily follow that their comment is scientific.