Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote: Let me explain simple logic too you.....

Now who's being rude and condescending? I was (and still is) hoping for an intelligent conversation.

Revolutionary wrote:Simple logic would bring intellect along an undeniable path in thought....

We shall see ...

Revolutionary wrote:Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness....

That's your first error of equivocation. A void is not nothingness, a void is a void, which is bound by space-time. That's the first 'simple' thing we need to agree on, i.e. what is nothing. Otherwise there really is no point in going further. Nothing is nothing. It's not a void, it's not the law of gravity, it's a quantum fluctuation or a brane segment or the point at which a bubble bursts and a new cycle begins. Nothing is really and truly nothing. It is a privation, i.e. the complete and total absence of anything. If you agree let's move on. If you don't then please forgive me but I can't waste my time any more than I already have.

Revolutionary wrote: More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time....

More so, you would have to prove, not merely assert, that time is infinite. Unfortunately for you science is, once again, not on your side considering the space-time continuum absolutely breaks down at the moment of singularity. It is its product, not the other way around. Unless and until you can back up your assertion vis-s-vis a timeless time (lol, that's quite a conundrum you got there) then I will have no choice but dismiss your baseless assertion.

Revolutionary wrote:If a universe could spring from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin. This (our observable universe) is just small scale view to something (infinitely more expansive) that logically, there is no point of origin.

As I said, nothing but fallacies and baseless assertions.

Revolutionary wrote:Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe', only because it can't observe it and so there is no real point!

You are dead wrong. Science has plenty to say beyond our observable universe and all the contemporary evidence points to a single, ultimate creation, irrespective of the number or type of universes postulated, irrespective of periodic table and the laws of chemistry and biology, irrespective of even the laws of physics. I am ready to discuss it if you are.

Revolutionary wrote:And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator

The only conundrum exists in your (il)logic.

RickD wrote:Byblos, did I mention that it's good to see you back?

In 1922, Russian cosmologist & mathematician Alexander Friedman found that solutions to Einstein's general relativity field equations resulted in an expanding universe.
As a believer in a static, eternal universe, Einstein added a cosmological constant to his equations, "correcting" for this "error" and thus eliminating the expansion. He would later call this the biggest blunder of his life.

PaulSacramento wrote:Science has tried to answer the issue of "creation" in the "Big Bang" by postulating the hypothesis of "multiple universes" for example and this is a hypothesis that has NO basis whatsoever on anything the is observable in the known universe.
In short, science does try at times to comment on what it can't observe.
It just ends up doing a pretty bad job about it.
A quick summary:
http://physics.about.com/od/astronomy/f/BigBang.htm

In regards to Einstein for example:

In 1922, Russian cosmologist & mathematician Alexander Friedman found that solutions to Einstein's general relativity field equations resulted in an expanding universe.
As a believer in a static, eternal universe, Einstein added a cosmological constant to his equations, "correcting" for this "error" and thus eliminating the expansion. He would later call this the biggest blunder of his life.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Science has tried to answer the issue of "creation" in the "Big Bang" by postulating the hypothesis of "multiple universes" for example and this is a hypothesis that has NO basis whatsoever on anything the is observable in the known universe.
In short, science does try at times to comment on what it can't observe.
It just ends up doing a pretty bad job about it.
A quick summary:
http://physics.about.com/od/astronomy/f/BigBang.htm

In regards to Einstein for example:

In 1922, Russian cosmologist & mathematician Alexander Friedman found that solutions to Einstein's general relativity field equations resulted in an expanding universe.
As a believer in a static, eternal universe, Einstein added a cosmological constant to his equations, "correcting" for this "error" and thus eliminating the expansion. He would later call this the biggest blunder of his life.

There's nothing wrong with scientific theories that are non-observable or non-testable so long at they are derived from and consistent with observable data. I can state without any hesitation whatsoever that contemporary cosmological theories not only point to an ultimate, single creation, that they are highly, highly unlikely to be falsified with new data, considering the condition (singular, one single condition) that the theory rests upon.

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote: Let me explain simple logic too you.....

Now who's being rude and condescending? I was (and still is) hoping for an intelligent conversation.

Revolutionary wrote:Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness....

Byblos wrote:That's your first error of equivocation. A void is not nothingness, a void is a void, which is bound by space-time. That's the first 'simple' thing we need to agree on, i.e. what is nothing. Otherwise there really is no point in going further. Nothing is nothing. It's not a void, it's not the law of gravity, it's not a quantum fluctuation or a brane segment or the point at which a bubble bursts and a new cycle begins. Nothing is really and truly nothing. It is a privation, i.e. the complete and total absence of anything. If you agree let's move on. If you don't then please forgive me but I can't waste my time any more than I already have.

Revolutionary wrote: More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time....

Byblos wrote:More so, you would have to prove, not merely assert, that time is infinite. Unfortunately for you science is, once again, not on your side considering the space-time continuum absolutely breaks down at the moment of singularity. It is its product, not the other way around. Unless and until you can back up your assertion vis-a-vis a timeless time (lol, that's quite a conundrum you got there) then I will have no choice but dismiss your baseless assertion.

Revolutionary wrote:If a universe could spring from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin. This (our observable universe) is just small scale view to something (infinitely more expansive) that logically, there is no point of origin.

Byblos wrote:As I said, nothing but fallacies and baseless assertions.

Revolutionary wrote:Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe', only because it can't observe it and so there is no real point!

Byblos wrote:You are dead wrong. Science has plenty to say beyond our observable universe and all the contemporary evidence points to a single, ultimate creation, irrespective of the number or type of universes postulated, irrespective of any periodic table and the laws of chemistry and biology, irrespective of even the laws of physics. I am ready to discuss it if you are.

Revolutionary wrote:And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator

Byblos wrote:The only conundrum exists in your (il)logic.

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote: Let me explain simple logic too you.....

Now who's being rude and condescending? I was (and still is) hoping for an intelligent conversation.

Logic isn't rude or condescending, it would be unintelligent to believe otherwise.

Revolutionary wrote:Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness....

Byblos wrote:That's your first error of equivocation. A void is not nothingness, a void is a void, which is bound by space-time. That's the first 'simple' thing we need to agree on, i.e. what is nothing. Otherwise there really is no point in going further. Nothing is nothing. It's not a void, it's not the law of gravity, it's not a quantum fluctuation or a brane segment or the point at which a bubble bursts and a new cycle begins. Nothing is really and truly nothing. It is a privation, i.e. the complete and total absence of anything. If you agree let's move on. If you don't then please forgive me but I can't waste my time any more than I already have.

Revolutionary wrote:Void and nothingness are actually synonymous, it is used in the scientific language as well.... I prefer void, but used the slash nothingness merely to appeal to how the individual mind independently chooses to see it.

Revolutionary wrote: More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time....

Byblos wrote:More so, you would have to prove, not merely assert, that time is infinite. Unfortunately for you science is, once again, not on your side considering the space-time continuum absolutely breaks down at the moment of singularity. It is its product, not the other way around. Unless and until you can back up your assertion vis-a-vis a timeless time (lol, that's quite a conundrum you got there) then I will have no choice but dismiss your baseless assertion.

Revolutionary wrote:What was the state before time since you want to assert that time is finite?

Revolutionary wrote:If a universe could spring from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin. This (our observable universe) is just small scale view to something (infinitely more expansive) that logically, there is no point of origin.

Byblos wrote:As I said, nothing but fallacies and baseless assertions.

Revolutionary wrote:Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe', only because it can't observe it and so there is no real point!

Byblos wrote:You are dead wrong. Science has plenty to say beyond our observable universe and all the contemporary evidence points to a single, ultimate creation, irrespective of the number or type of universes postulated, irrespective of any periodic table and the laws of chemistry and biology, irrespective of even the laws of physics. I am ready to discuss it if you are.

Revolutionary wrote:And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator

Byblos wrote:The only conundrum exists in your (il)logic.

Revolutionary wrote:It is not my burden to try and prove some sort of state of nothing (well not even nothing because nothing is actually a state) where time and space never existed, science has no desire to prove such absurdity either.... Regardless of the relativistic properties of space and time, without it ?????.... Your argument is basically to argue for absolutely nothing, congratulations, you have succeeded!

Revolutionary wrote:Now, back to the real world!

Byblos wrote: But that would be scientifically wrong since a void is not only NOT nothing (a void can be measured, how exactly do you measure nothing), and more importantly a void is not infinite. If you want to assert that a void or time is infinite the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate how.

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote: But that would be scientifically wrong since a void is not only NOT nothing (a void can be measured, how exactly do you measure nothing), and more importantly a void is not infinite. If you want to assert that a void or time is infinite the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate how.

First, measure a void for me.... Then we will continue

byblos wrote:
define an infinite void. I'll be waiting for your answer.

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote: But that would be scientifically wrong since a void is not only NOT nothing (a void can be measured, how exactly do you measure nothing), and more importantly a void is not infinite. If you want to assert that a void or time is infinite the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate how.

First, measure a void for me.... Then we will continue

Are you saying a void cannot be created in enclosed area such as a tube? You must be joking ... All those lab experiments on the rate an object falls in a vacuum irrespective of its mass must be all falsified then.

No, a bounded void can certainly be measured. The more important question, however (for you, since you asserted it), is how do you define an infinite void. I'll be waiting for your answer.

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:

Byblos wrote: But that would be scientifically wrong since a void is not only NOT nothing (a void can be measured, how exactly do you measure nothing), and more importantly a void is not infinite. If you want to assert that a void or time is infinite the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate how.

First, measure a void for me.... Then we will continue

Are you saying a void cannot be created in enclosed area such as a tube? You must be joking ... All those lab experiments on the rate an object falls in a vacuum irrespective of its mass must be all falsified then.

No, a bounded void can certainly be measured. The more important question, however (for you, since you asserted it), is how do you define an infinite void. I'll be waiting for your answer.

We're not talking about a vacuum in a tube, we're talking about space.... Is space contained in a tube? That's your response, really?

Revolutionary wrote:Removing obvious contextual value from a discussion points to further avoidance!

Revolutionary wrote:Word games and avoidance tactics might work for a little while, but it's only a matter of time before you find yourself digging a massive hole for yourself.... In a discussion of infinity, that's a big hole!

Revolutionary wrote:Let's share knowledge rather than try and stifle it!