Evidence for God from Science

DRDS wrote:I just don't know what to say Seraph, you almost seem to me to be doing your best to find an excuse to reject God. You spend so much time and effort trying to show us the the multiverse has merit. Come on! Currently there is NO hard evidence for the multiverse. And quite honestly, I don't think there ever will be any hard evidence for it. The multiverse is simply a last ditch effort for atheists to explain away the fine tuning and to give a natural hypothesis to what caused our universe. The fact that you by pass all the good resources and advice that all the others here have given you seems to say to me that you HOPE that atheist scientists will find evidence for the multiverse because you HOPE that the multiverse is true. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid I could be right.

I don't get that impression at all. What I get from Serpah is that he is simply not convinced with the veracity of the cosmological argument (which obviously I vehemently disagree with as imo it is one of the most compelling evidences for the existance of God, but that's besides the point) and that he is trying to argue from a devil's advocate perspective. I could be wrong but that's the impression I get.

neo-x wrote:The biggest problem with multi-verse is, it can't be proved, it can't be observed. Even if it exists the only way to travel to it is to travel faster than the speed of light. Yeah looks really good on paper but in reality a feat like that is impossible. The largest particle accelerators on Earth can only come 99.99 percent of the speed of light, not greater, no matter how much power it is fed. And the reason is - light theory defines and is tested that the greater an object accelerates close to the speed of light the more power is required to push it forward. So unless the multi verse is proved one way or the other, it is the same as saying, it could happen so why not accept it may very well happen. Well the onus is on science to prove it first then we could say whether this poses a problem to theology. until then what is the point of accepting it.

And believe me multi verse is a far more greater question than the meager ones that science still needs to answer. for example, evolution, the first formation of matter, exact point in time of creation, an artificial primordial soup that could at least produce something, DNA, gay genes, objective morality, free will, soul, para normal, cloning, subconscious, how dreams come true, biblical prophecies coming true, self organizing behavior of cells/genes, altruism, and the list is endless folks...So I won't worry about multi-verse just yet, we still have a long way to go before we even get there.

That's just the wrong attitude, I'm sorry. It smacks of God of the gaps argument: don't worry about it because science can't prove it. But what happens if science does prove it, what then? No we need to be prepared to offer solid arguments that will hold no matter what. But those arguments don't have to be invented from scratch every time, they've been around for several centuries (Aquinas' 5 ways that are independent of ANY type of uni-multi-osci-para-verse ) and I dare say several millennia (Aristotle's formal and final causation). Those doctrines are not only reasonable (as in rational), they are backed up by science folks, from the fact that nothing comes from nothing to the more recent theorems such as BVG which state that any expanding universe (at any rate greater than zero) must have had a beginning (and that applies by extension to its cause as well, i.e. the super universe-producing mindless god). That's my perspective at least.

LOL...I'm not saying science can't prove any of it, it may very well someday (by present technology we can't), all I said was that the multi verse is very very far in terms of engineering feats and well as documented evidence to be of any credibility just yet. Far more questions are already in the cue.

No we need to be prepared to offer solid arguments that will hold no matter what.

neo-x wrote:LOL...I'm not saying science can't prove any of it, it may very well someday (by present technology we can't), all I said was that the multi verse is very very far in terms of engineering feats and well as documented evidence to be of any credibility just yet. Far more questions are already in the cue.

We're on the same page Neo. Isn't it amazing though that the great philosophers of our time somehow knew these types of arguments will come up and they worked tirelessly to counter them (and they did) hundreds and thousands of years before the discovery of the big bang, quantum physics or evolution? I find that to be just incredible.

We're on the same page Neo. Isn't it amazing though that the great philosophers of our time somehow knew these types of arguments will come up and they worked tirelessly to counter them (and they did) hundreds and thousands of years before the discovery of the big bang, quantum physics or evolution? I find that to be just incredible.

I couldn't agree more.

I just don't know what to say Seraph, you almost seem to me to be doing your best to find an excuse to reject God. You spend so much time and effort trying to show us the the multiverse has merit. Come on! Currently there is NO hard evidence for the multiverse. And quite honestly, I don't think there ever will be any hard evidence for it. The multiverse is simply a last ditch effort for atheists to explain away the fine tuning and to give a natural hypothesis to what caused our universe. The fact that you by pass all the good resources and advice that all the others here have given you seems to say to me that you HOPE that atheist scientists will find evidence for the multiverse because you HOPE that the multiverse is true. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid I could be right.

Not true. I'm only arguing from the multiverse side as best as I can because it should be represented fully if it's to be debunked correctly. If we reach a conclusion that "God created the universe" yet I know that there is a counterarguement to be made, it doesn't do it a lot of good to just leave it at that. If the Cosmological Arguement is true, it should stand up no matter much scrutiny it's put under. It can't hurt to pursue the truth. I'm not arguing that the multiverse ought to be believed, and I'm not going to switch to Atheism or anything if I'm not 100% convinced by the end of this thread that the multiverse is false.

I don't get that impression at all. What I get from Serpah is that he is simply not convinced with the veracity of the cosmological argument (which obviously I vehemently disagree with as imo it is one of the most compelling evidences for the existance of God, but that's besides the point) and that he is trying to argue from a devil's advocate perspective. I could be wrong but that's the impression I get.

Thanks Byblos.

Because He is the first UNCAUSED cause, Seraph. Not only must there be an uncaused cause, but this uncaused cause must have the INTENT to first cause from nothing, something a mindless, thoughtless (albeit universe producing) mutlivere cannot possibly have.

I know that He is the uncaused cause, but God is not the only hypothetical uncaused cause. Like I said, the multiverse is an uncaused cause in the theory. Also, I don't understand why the first cause MUST have had intent. A lot of events in nature happen without intent and with no intellegent purpose.

If God were complex then he would be reducible, if he were reducible, he would have some potentiality (dependency that is), if he had any potentiality he would require a creator and would not be God . God is irreducible because he is pure actuality, pure existence, and pure intelligence. Only such a being can form the intent to create from nothing. Seriously, you need to read up on the doctrine of God's simplicity. Here's a quick review

I know that Aquinas' doctrine of divine simplicity exists, but I don't think that it makes very much sense. God clearly has characteristics that are more than simple. God has love, God could've not had love and He would be simpler. He has a mind, He would be simpler if He did not have a mind. He has complete dominance over existence, He would be simpler if He didn't have that power. "Nothingness" has more simplicity than God. Thus it seems to me that God could be reduced to a simpler form. If you accept the traditional view of the Trinity of God being three yet simultaneously one, this is complicated even more. In addition, these characteristics are no simpler than "a formless timeless matterless state of quantum instability".

And yet again, no it solves nothing as you'd still be left with who created the multiverse, there really is no escaping that. It is a mindless, purposeless machine full of dependencies and no INTENT to do anything, let alone create from nothing. You're back to square one.

Like I said above, due to the nature of the model of the multiverse, no intent would be necessary. I think that's probably the biggest "threat" that the multiverse theory poses.

No we need to be prepared to offer solid arguments that will hold no matter what.

I'm a little iffy about arguements that appear to be true regardless of evidence. A lot of times these arguements are very circular and even if the conclusion were in fact false, due to the clever wording of the arguement it would still appear to be true. The Ontological arguement for example...

Those doctrines are not only reasonable (as in rational), they are backed up by science folks, from the fact that nothing comes from nothing to the more recent theorems such as BVG which state that any expanding universe (at any rate greater than zero) must have had a beginning (and that applies by extension to its cause as well, i.e. the super universe-producing mindless god). That's my perspective at least.

Do all existing universes/multiverse have to be expanding? What if it were static and had no spacial "boundaries"?

Seraph wrote:

Because He is the first UNCAUSED cause, Seraph. Not only must there be an uncaused cause, but this uncaused cause must have the INTENT to first cause from nothing, something a mindless, thoughtless (albeit universe producing) mutlivere cannot possibly have.

I know that He is the uncaused cause, but God is not the only hypothetical uncaused cause. Like I said, the multiverse is an uncaused cause in the theory. Also, I don't understand why the first cause MUST have had intent. A lot of events in nature happen without intent and with no intellegent purpose.

The multiverse cannot be the uncaused cause because the multiverse is made up of something (matter, wave, energy, quantum fluctuation, strings, whatever). We already know that from nothing nothing comes Seraph, that's basic. Like I said before, nothing is really and truly nothing. It's not strings or membranes, it's not gravity, it's not energy floating out there, there is not even an 'out there' to speak of; there is absolute nothing. From this absolute nothing, for the murliverse to even exist at all, it first would have to form the intent to create itself (or if you wish to come into being spontaneously OUT OF NOTHING, which is absurd) before it can create other universes. It does no good to equate it with God because God is shown (logically shown that is) to be eternal, uncreated, pure intelligence and pure existence. Existence itself must exist before anything else can exist. Only such a being that is pure existence can, not only form the intent to create from nothing, but also can be said to be uncaused. A multiverse does not qualify.

If God were complex then he would be reducible, if he were reducible, he would have some potentiality (dependency that is), if he had any potentiality he would require a creator and would not be God . God is irreducible because he is pure actuality, pure existence, and pure intelligence. Only such a being can form the intent to create from nothing. Seriously, you need to read up on the doctrine of God's simplicity. Here's a quick review

Seraph wrote:I know that Aquinas' doctrine of divine simplicity exists, but I don't think that it makes very much sense. God clearly has characteristics that are more than simple. God has love, God could've not had love and He would be simpler. He has a mind, He would be simpler if He did not have a mind. He has complete dominance over existence, He would be simpler if He didn't have that power. "Nothingness" has more simplicity than God. Thus it seems to me that God could be reduced to a simpler form. If you accept the traditional view of the Trinity of God being three yet simultaneously one, this is complicated even more. In addition, these characteristics are no simpler than "a formless timeless matterless state of quantum instability".

Well that is the very same reason I hold to the doctrine of divine simplicity because if God is reducible in any way then some part of him is incomplete and dependent on something else. I would agree that that's a characteristic of the multiverse since it cannot account for why there is quantum activity of any kind to begin with. The multiverse cannot answer the question why there is something rather than nothing (and by extension rationally explain its own existence) where as God IS existence and therefore, there is something rather than nothing.

Seraph wrote:

And yet again, no it solves nothing as you'd still be left with who created the multiverse, there really is no escaping that. It is a mindless, purposeless machine full of dependencies and no INTENT to do anything, let alone create from nothing. You're back to square one.

Like I said above, due to the nature of the model of the multiverse, no intent would be necessary. I think that's probably the biggest "threat" that the multiverse theory poses.

I think I've covered that above.

Seraph wrote:

No we need to be prepared to offer solid arguments that will hold no matter what.

I'm a little iffy about arguements that appear to be true regardless of evidence. A lot of times these arguements are very circular and even if the conclusion were in fact false, due to the clever wording of the arguement it would still appear to be true. The Ontological arguement for example...

Oy vey! One subject at a time Seraph, please. My little brain is on a single track.

Seraph wrote:

Those doctrines are not only reasonable (as in rational), they are backed up by science folks, from the fact that nothing comes from nothing to the more recent theorems such as BVG which state that any expanding universe (at any rate greater than zero) must have had a beginning (and that applies by extension to its cause as well, i.e. the super universe-producing mindless god). That's my perspective at least.

Do all existing universes/multiverse have to be expanding? What if it were static and had no spacial "boundaries"?

No they do not have to be expanding but then would they be said to be 'existing'? I don't think so, I would imagine they would just blend back into the mother ship. But if a universe is to be anthropic (capable of supporting life, any kind of life, with any kind of chemistry and biology laws), then yes, such a universe must be an expanding one (with an expansion rate of greater than zero). And if it is an expanding universe then it must have had a beginning.

Rule of thumb:
While we can use human understanding to try to understand the world we live in and perhaps even understand certain qualities about God.
We can't use it to define or put limitations on God based on what we THINK the whole universe is or how it all works.

PaulSacramento wrote:Rule of thumb:
While we can use human understanding to try to understand the world we live in and perhaps even understand certain qualities about God.
We can't use it to define or put limitations on God based on what we THINK the whole universe is or how it all works.

While I would agree with that in principle, unfortunately our atheist brothers and sisters will use that against us in claiming we believe in God of the gaps, i.e. we believe in God only because we can't explain things and once science explains them, there really would be no need for God. I'm sorry but that's just not acceptable.

No they do not have to be expanding but then would they be said to be 'existing'? I don't think so, I would imagine they would just blend back into the mother ship. But if a universe is to be anthropic (capable of supporting life, any kind of life, with any kind of chemistry and biology laws), then yes, such a universe must be an expanding one (with an expansion rate of greater than zero). And if it is an expanding universe then it must have had a beginning.

Right but I bring this up because it could be the case that the multiverse as a whole (or the space between universes) is static and spatially infinite and does not have any of the conditions to support life within it, but is able to give rise to big bangs, one of which results in our universe which is expanding and can support life.

Well that is the very same reason I hold to the doctrine of divine simplicity because if God is reducible in any way then some part of him is incomplete and dependent on something else. I would agree that that's a characteristic of the multiverse since it cannot account for why there is quantum activity of any kind to begin with. The multiverse cannot answer the question why there is something rather than nothing (and by extension rationally explain its own existence) where as God IS existence and therefore, there is something rather than nothing.

Well, there lies the question of why there is God rather than absolute nothing as well. It seems that someone will run into this dilema no matter what they believe is the prime mover. I've never heard anyone say before that God IS existence and that this is the reason for why He exists. Are we just praying to existence? Clearly God is more than just existence itself. He has more characteristics than simple existence (which He would be more simple if He didn't have). Why does God have a mind and thoughts and a will rather than nothing? Where do His thoughts come from? Why does He have a Son rather than nothing?

Rule of thumb:
While we can use human understanding to try to understand the world we live in and perhaps even understand certain qualities about God.
We can't use it to define or put limitations on God based on what we THINK the whole universe is or how it all works.

Definately true, but I think we do need to have enough of an understanding, so that we can be sure that our faith is based in reality. If we have too little understanding of God and the world, we could be pulled into believing some pretty outlandish things.

Seraph wrote:

I just don't know what to say Seraph, you almost seem to me to be doing your best to find an excuse to reject God. You spend so much time and effort trying to show us the the multiverse has merit. Come on! Currently there is NO hard evidence for the multiverse. And quite honestly, I don't think there ever will be any hard evidence for it. The multiverse is simply a last ditch effort for atheists to explain away the fine tuning and to give a natural hypothesis to what caused our universe. The fact that you by pass all the good resources and advice that all the others here have given you seems to say to me that you HOPE that atheist scientists will find evidence for the multiverse because you HOPE that the multiverse is true. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid I could be right.

Not true. I'm only arguing from the multiverse side as best as I can because it should be represented fully if it's to be debunked correctly. If we reach a conclusion that "God created the universe" yet I know that there is a counterarguement to be made, it doesn't do it a lot of good to just leave it at that. If the Cosmological Arguement is true, it should stand up no matter much scrutiny it's put under. It can't hurt to pursue the truth. I'm not arguing that the multiverse ought to be believed, and I'm not going to switch to Atheism or anything if I'm not 100% convinced by the end of this thread that the multiverse is false.

Oh ok, sorry about that. I thought you were just being so overly passionate about the multiverse you gave me the impression that you wanted and hope that it is true. I do know however that is the feeling that many atheists or the passionate,militant, new atheists seem to have.

Seraph wrote:

No they do not have to be expanding but then would they be said to be 'existing'? I don't think so, I would imagine they would just blend back into the mother ship. But if a universe is to be anthropic (capable of supporting life, any kind of life, with any kind of chemistry and biology laws), then yes, such a universe must be an expanding one (with an expansion rate of greater than zero). And if it is an expanding universe then it must have had a beginning.

Right but I bring this up because it could be the case that the multiverse as a whole (or the space between universes) is static and spatially infinite and does not have any of the conditions to support life within it, but is able to give rise to big bangs, one of which results in our universe which is expanding and can support life.

You can theorize anything you want but the fact remains from nothing nothing comes so there is no basis in reason to believe the multiverse spontaneously sprung from absolute nothing nor that it is eternal since it is made up of something (whatever that is).

Seraph wrote:

Well that is the very same reason I hold to the doctrine of divine simplicity because if God is reducible in any way then some part of him is incomplete and dependent on something else. I would agree that that's a characteristic of the multiverse since it cannot account for why there is quantum activity of any kind to begin with. The multiverse cannot answer the question why there is something rather than nothing (and by extension rationally explain its own existence) where as God IS existence and therefore, there is something rather than nothing.

Well, there lies the question of why there is God rather than absolute nothing as well. It seems that someone will run into this dilema no matter what they believe is the prime mover.

The question you need to be asking is: there OUTGHT TO be nothing so why is there something? The answer is either intent (and therefore intelligence, purpose) or spontaneous creation from absolute nothing, which is utterly absurd. That's what it comes down to.

Seraph wrote:I've never heard anyone say before that God IS existence and that this is the reason for why He exists. Are we just praying to existence? Clearly God is more than just existence itself. He has more characteristics than simple existence (which He would be more simple if He didn't have). Why does God have a mind and thoughts and a will rather than nothing? Where do His thoughts come from? Why does He have a Son rather than nothing?

Come on now Seraph, God is existence in a metaphysical sense meaning nothing could exist without Him. That doesn't mean you worship existence any more than you can say you worship love because God is said to be pure love. And God has a 'mind' and 'thought' or a 'son' rather than nothing because if there was absolute nothing and no God then we ought not be here having this discussion. But read this article for a more in depth description of God's attributes (and how they do not change his simplicity).

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Rule of thumb:
While we can use human understanding to try to understand the world we live in and perhaps even understand certain qualities about God.
We can't use it to define or put limitations on God based on what we THINK the whole universe is or how it all works.

While I would agree with that in principle, unfortunately our atheist brothers and sisters will use that against us in claiming we believe in God of the gaps, i.e. we believe in God only because we can't explain things and once science explains them, there really would be no need for God. I'm sorry but that's just not acceptable.

You seem to be viewing it as an "all or nothing" type of thing and the fact is, we have a lIMITED understanding of the universe, based soley on our perception of reality.
EX: 2000 years ago a virgin birth was a miracle or a myth, depending on what side of the fence you are on.
Today? It can be as common as any other medical procedure.
Our understanding of nature evolved as did our reality and as such, our reality TODAY is NOT the reality of 2000 years ago and will certaibly NOT be the relaity of 2000 years from now.
It's not about being able to explain or not explain, it's about understanding where our limits lie and realizing that we may just not KNOW enough for a final answer.
YET, as I pointed out, we MAY know enough to get an "idea".

Look at it this way:
You want to understand God? to understand all that God is?
Fine, start with the one thing that we have SOME idead about and that is the WHOLE universe.
WHEN you have understood ALL OF IT, then you are at the level where you can BEGIN to understand who and who created it.
Until then, what exactly are your qualifications to understand God in his entirety?

Definately true, but I think we do need to have enough of an understanding, so that we can be sure that our faith is based in reality. If we have too little understanding of God and the world, we could be pulled into believing some pretty outlandish things.

Of course, I agree, that is why God is revealed to US in not only the Bible, but the universe that God created and the living WORD of God.
If one was to focus on only one thing, the bible for example, we get an incomplete picture, to borrow and modify and excellent quote from Bruce Lee:
The bible is like a finger pointing the way to God, don't concentrate on the finger or you miss all the heavenly glory.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Rule of thumb:
While we can use human understanding to try to understand the world we live in and perhaps even understand certain qualities about God.
We can't use it to define or put limitations on God based on what we THINK the whole universe is or how it all works.

While I would agree with that in principle, unfortunately our atheist brothers and sisters will use that against us in claiming we believe in God of the gaps, i.e. we believe in God only because we can't explain things and once science explains them, there really would be no need for God. I'm sorry but that's just not acceptable.

You seem to be viewing it as an "all or nothing" type of thing and the fact is, we have a lIMITED understanding of the universe, based soley on our perception of reality.
EX: 2000 years ago a virgin birth was a miracle or a myth, depending on what side of the fence you are on.
Today? It can be as common as any other medical procedure.
Our understanding of nature evolved as did our reality and as such, our reality TODAY is NOT the reality of 2000 years ago and will certaibly NOT be the relaity of 2000 years from now.
It's not about being able to explain or not explain, it's about understanding where our limits lie and realizing that we may just not KNOW enough for a final answer.
YET, as I pointed out, we MAY know enough to get an "idea".

Look at it this way:
You want to understand God? to understand all that God is?
Fine, start with the one thing that we have SOME idead about and that is the WHOLE universe.
WHEN you have understood ALL OF IT, then you are at the level where you can BEGIN to understand who and who created it.
Until then, what exactly are your qualifications to understand God in his entirety?

Nothing you said I disagree with here Paul. All I'm saying is that whatever arguments are posited by atheists for the non-existence of God, I believe it is our duty to provide sound counter-arguments and not rest on the idea that it's inexplicable because it's a mystery. Ultimately you're right though, like I said to Seraph above, it all comes down to a matter of belief. Either one believes creation is from intent, intelligence, and purpose, or one believes it is from blind, purposeless chance from absolute nothing. But they are beliefs nonetheless. It's just that the former is grounded in reason and the latter in sheer absurdity.