Evidence for God from Science

1over137 wrote:...If you accept that there are other dimensions we never ever find out that they are, why not to accept another (and bizzare) things to exist?

Hmmmm....

Link on Dimensions

Spacetime

String Theory

String Theory-2

M-Theory

Then again,the origin of the universe was never witnessed by human beings - conjecture is still conjecture...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

1over137 wrote:...If you accept that there are other dimensions we never ever find out that they are, why not to accept another (and bizzare) things to exist?

Hmmmm....

Link on Dimensions

Spacetime

String Theory

String Theory-2

M-Theory

Could you tell me what should I focus on in the provided links? Can you quote?

Concerning the string theory:

wikipedia:
"Not all strings are confined to p-branes. Strings with closed loops, like the graviton, are completely free to move from membrane to membrane. Of the four force carrier particles, the graviton is unique in this way. Researchers speculate that this is the reason why investigation through the weak force, the strong force, and the electromagnetic force have not
hinted at the possibility of extra dimensions. These force carrier particles are strings with endpoints that confine them to their p-branes. Further testing is needed in order to show that extra spatial dimensions indeed exist through experimentation with gravity."

So, existence of extra dimensions can be tested.

I recomend to read: http://particle-theory.physics.lsa.umic ... 0world.pdf

Some quotes from there:

"Athough string theory is formulated in 10 or 11 dimensions, specific string theory solutions make unambiguous, testable predictions about our four-dimensional universe."

"... string theory provides a framework to address and relate many open questions in particle physics. We know that particles divide into three families exemplified by the electron, muon, and tau, but if we didn't know it, string theory would suggest that families exist and why. If we did not know about forces such as the strong and electroweak forces of the standard model, or the parity violation of the weak interactions, or supersymmetry, or inflation, or gravity, string theory would suggest them."

"Based on the presentation of string theory in some popular books, articles, and blogs, one might well be suspicious of taking purported string theory explanations seriously. Such sources often claim that string theory is not testable, and I agree that untestable explanations are not helpful. But I would also argue that string theory is testable in basically the same ways that other theories are and that string theory is ordinary science in terms of describing nature and testing its explanations."

"Fortunately, an increasing active group of 'string phenomenologists' are focusing on formulating a string-based description of the world and testing that understanding."

"Some books and popular articles have claimed that because string theories are naturally formulated at such high energies or small distances, they cannot be tested. Obviously, collisions will never probe energy scales of 10^18 GeV, some 14 orders of magnitude larger than that of the LHC. But equally obviously, one does not have to be somewhere to test what's going
on there. Physicists have no doubt that a hot Big Bang occurred even though no one was there to witness it: We are convinced by the extensive evidence from relics such as the expanding universe, helium and other light-element abundances, and the cosmic microwave background radiation. You do not have to travel at the speed of light to test that it is the limiting speed."

"To make contact with the real world, a 10D or 11D string theory must be compactified. String theories with stable or metastable ground states usually also have supersymmetry, so the compactification process must break supersymmetry. ... Some compactifications have generated wrong predictions. ... It is simply wrong to say that string theory is not testable in basically the same way that F=ma or the Schoringer equation is testable. One specific test of a compactified string theory involves neutrino masses ..."

"Probably the ideal goal for those who want to examine string theory is to formulate testable properties that hold for all compactified string theories with metastable or stable vacua, regardless of the form of the compactification or other conditions such as supersymmetry breaking. Most knowledgeable physicists would agree that the gravitational force is one such property; its existence is a success for string theory."

"Earlier this year Bobby Acharya, Eric Kuflik, and I proposed a test that concerns the cosmological history of the universe, one that should be aplicable to any compactifies string theory. ..."

B. W. wrote: Then again,the origin of the universe was never witnessed by human beings - conjecture is still conjecture...

"one does not have to be somewhere to test what's going on there. Physicists have no doubt that a hot Big Bang occurred even though no one was there to witness it: We are convinced by the extensive evidence from relics such as the expanding universe, helium and other light-element abundances, and the cosmic microwave background radiation. You do not have
to travel at the speed of light to test that it is the limiting speed."

1over137 wrote:I do not see a problem here if our debate was e.g. about physical laws.

DannyM wrote: Naturalism fails to adequately explain the uniformity in human thought.

Uniformity in human thought? I do not understand what you mean here.

DannyM wrote: It cannot account for the assumed objectivity of truth. If you think it can, please explain it to me because I haven’t seen it yet.

I think that naturalism can account for the objectivity of truth. Again, if our debate was about physical laws then we could find out whose statement was true.

DannyM wrote: Like I said, Justified true belief. Truth is necessary to knowledge. Knowledge presupposes truth.

Take again physical laws. Everybody is subjected to the law of gravity. Belief that I return back to the ground when I jump is justified. So, knowledge can be accounted for in a godless universe. (Or not?)

Hi 1over! I'm confused again I thought we were talking about love, and then knowledge... But physical laws don't help the naturalist either.
I'm very busy right now (and sorry for the delay) but I'll get back to this soon.

DannyM wrote: Hi 1over! I'm confused again I thought we were talking about love, and then knowledge...

I was talking about knowledge.

DannyM wrote: I'm very busy right now (and sorry for the delay) but I'll get back to this soon.

No problem. Take your time.

Take again physical laws. Everybody is subjected to the law of gravity. Belief that I return back to the ground when I jump is justified. So, knowledge can be accounted for in a godless universe.

Wish Jac were here to pick that one apart.

jlay wrote:

Take again physical laws. Everybody is subjected to the law of gravity. Belief that I return back to the ground when I jump is justified. So, knowledge can be accounted for in a godless universe.

Wish Jac were here to pick that one apart.

May I know what his username was? Curious to see some of his posts.

1over137 wrote:

jlay wrote:

Take again physical laws. Everybody is subjected to the law of gravity. Belief that I return back to the ground when I jump is justified. So, knowledge can be accounted for in a godless universe.

Wish Jac were here to pick that one apart.

May I know what his username was? Curious to see some of his posts.

Jac3510

1over137 wrote:I do not see a problem here if our debate was e.g. about physical laws.

And what is it about physical laws which makes you say this?

Uniformity in human thought? I do not understand what you mean here.

The uniformity in human thought, say, how we all have knowledge that a frog is a frog, or how we all have knowledge of the laws of logic. Anything you wish to add, basically.

I think that naturalism can account for the objectivity of truth. Again, if our debate was about physical laws then we could find out whose statement was true.

And how do you account for the uniformity in nature, then?

Take again physical laws. Everybody is subjected to the law of gravity. Belief that I return back to the ground when I jump is justified. So, knowledge can be accounted for in a godless universe. (Or not?)

And why should the law of gravity be the same in all places at the same time? Have you experienced every instance of the law of gravity?

DannyM wrote:

1ver137 wrote: I do not see a problem here if our debate was e.g. about physical laws.

And what is it about physical laws which makes you say this?

They are repeatable patterns.

DannyM wrote:

1over137 wrote: I think that naturalism can account for the objectivity of truth. Again, if our debate was about physical laws then we could find out whose statement was true.

And how do you account for the uniformity in nature, then?

First, how can naturalism account for the uniformity in nature? According to freedictionary the naturalism in philosophy means 'the system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws'. So, it is not the task for naturalism to explain the uniformity in nature. Naturalism presupposes the existence of repeatable patterns (I rather use this term than the term 'laws'). And how do I account for the uniformity? If God exist then the answer is God. If God does not exist, then the answer is 'I do not know'.

DannyM wrote:

1over137 wrote: Take again physical laws. Everybody is subjected to the law of gravity. Belief that I return back to the ground when I jump is
justified. So, knowledge can be accounted for in a godless universe. (Or not?)

And why should the law of gravity be the same in all places at the same time? Have you experienced every instance of the law of gravity?

I was talking about jumping and returning back to the ground. Since the very existence of human beings this is holding. So, here you have the whole earth (all places on the Earth) and a large time span. We observe the universe we observe and have not seen any place where gravity would behave differently. Well, in Newton times one could also wonder whether gravity is the same in all places. Here are we now, observing much more from the universe (I would say observing what is observable at all) and the law of gravity is still holding.

They are repeatable patterns.

Huh? What?
That isn't an explanation. Saying natural laws exist because natural laws exist doesn't account for anything.

First, how can naturalism account for the uniformity in nature? According to freedictionary the naturalism in philosophy means 'the system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws'. So, it is not the task for naturalism to explain the uniformity in nature.

That is weaker than milk toast, a cop out. All phenomena can be explained by something we can't explain the reason for. That is flawed at the most fundemental level.

I was talking about jumping and returning back to the ground. Since the very existence of human beings this is holding. So, here you have the whole earth (all places on the Earth) and a large time span. We observe the universe we observe and have not seen any place where gravity would behave differently. Well, in Newton times one could also wonder whether gravity is the same in all places. Here are we now, observing much more from the universe (I would say observing what is observable at all) and the law of gravity is still holding.

According to what? Please account for why human observation is consistent today as it was in the time of Newton. It presumes and entirely different uniformity to support another uniformity you can't account for. If human experience is the standard (repeatable jumping up and down) then was gravity non-existent before humans?

jlay wrote:All phenomena can be explained by something we can't explain the reason for.

Sounds like theism to me. Can one explain the reason for God?

Pro,

You said a mouthful buddy. That is exactly what an atheist is proposing. That wasn't my opinion. I was summing up 1 over is essentially stating.

Can one explain the reason for God?

Are you sure that's a valid question?

Perhaps not a valid question, but if not it kinda leaves the God answer in the 'that isn't an explanation' territory too. If one cannot explain the reason for God what makes God a more reasonable answer than something else which cannot be reasonably explained.

jlay wrote:

1over137 wrote: They are repeatable patterns.

Huh? What?
That isn't an explanation. Saying natural laws exist because natural laws exist doesn't account for anything.

Danny was asking me what makes me say that I do not see a problem in answering who is right when people would debate about physical laws. Well, yes, naturalism does not explain why natural laws exist, it presupposes that they do. But every time people do an experiment natural laws hold. So, with very high probability, there are natural laws.

jlay wrote:

1over137 wrote: First, how can naturalism account for the uniformity in nature? According to freedictionary the naturalism in philosophy means 'the system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws'. So, it is not the task for naturalism to explain the uniformity in nature.

That is weaker than milk toast, a cop out. All phenomena can be explained by something we can't explain the reason for. That is flawed at the most fundemental level.

I planned to ask something very similar Proinsias asked above.
Theism: God explains everything. We can't explain the reason for God.
Naturalism: Laws (repeatable patters) explain everything. We can't explain the reason for them.
Now, I think there are some differences. We can test the existence of physical laws. We do everytime we make an experiment. Can this be done with God?

jlay wrote:

1over137 wrote: I was talking about jumping and returning back to the ground. Since the very existence of human beings this is holding. So, here you have the whole earth (all places on the Earth) and a large time span. We observe the universe we observe and have not seen any place where gravity would behave differently. Well, in Newton times one could also wonder whether gravity is the same in all places. Here are we now, observing much more from the universe (I would say observing what is observable at all) and the law of gravity is still holding.

According to what? Please account for why human observation is consistent today as it was in the time of Newton. It presumes and entirely different uniformity to support another uniformity you can't account for. If human experience is the standard (repeatable jumping up and down) then was gravity non-existent before humans?

I cannot explain why human observation is consistent today as it was in the time of Newton, since I cannot explain why physical laws hold. Naturalism just presuposses that they are and they do.

Gravity was not non-existent before humans with very high probability. Why? Because we observe e.g. gravitational lensing. Since the ligth travelled to us bilion light years, gravity seems to hold even bilion light years back in time. Or take gravitational red shift. Our calculations based on the assumption that laws held also bilion light years ago, match our observations.

1over137 wrote:I planned to ask something very similar Proinsias asked above.
Theism: God explains everything. We can't explain the reason for God.

Really? Is that only your opinion? Because classical philosophy certainly disagrees with you.