Evidence for God from Science

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:neo=x -- take a look at Exodus 14 about God's delivering the Israelites from Egyptian captivity. They had the Red Sea to cross. vs 21 -- what God directed Moses to do and the result. The dry ground they crossed. In other wards God is very capable of doing the miraculous. And since God has created the planets and galaxies which so far have Not collided. He's Also, Still capable of now and in the billions of years in the future - to protect His Children from catastrophe -- and That will include the new earth -- where His Children will be living Forever.

Psalm 46:10 "Be still and know that I am God...."

First of all, galaxies collide all the time. And second if God is capable why doesn't he stop earthquake and Tsunami?

Because one is a global killer and would wipe out humanity, and the other is on a smaller scale.

So killing people in small numbers is alright?
I don't think you will like where this argument will reach.

No one is saying God isn't capable. I am saying he doesn't do that anymore on sea scales (parting the seas) or cosmic ones, stars explode, galaxies collide etc.


How do you know that He doesn't? Look at all the impact craters on the moon. How do you know that He doesn't prevent or redirect the big ones from hitting earth.

Look at earth, just a few days ago one (small one) passed right close to us and found out two days in promixity to earth.

But we're not talking about meteors anymore, we're talking about a galaxy, which on average contains a hundred billion stars, many, larger than our suns and their own systems and planets and debris belts etc.

This isn't really an objection, in my opinion, Stu. I can say how do you know you will go to heaven? You will just say you believe or something along the line. But it doesn't matter what you or I think. The validity of our statements should be rooted in reality. That is what counts. We must face facts, whether we like them or not.

So what if it contains a galaxy, God created the universe He can unmake it or just prevent a collision.

In other words you don't know, and neither do I, whether God does interfere on our behalf.

So killing people in small numbers is alright?
I don't think you will like where this argument will reach.

That's not what I said - it would wipe out humanity completely, there would be nothing left, His creation in His image (mankind) would be gone.

An earthquake might kill a couple people, but you take that risk if you live in an earthquake zone. As long as they know Jesus then they go to heaven.

Do you want God to micro-manage all our lives, or do you want autonomy? Do you know how many earthquakes occur around the planet everyday, must God stop all the earthquakes.

Freewill allows us to live in quake-free zones or build quake-resistant houses. Freewill would be negated if He micro-managed our lives.

Edit: I guess some of us would mind and others would not mind if God micro-managed our lives.

The point which you and Crochet and some others have missed incidentally while being quite defensive of the hopeful miraculous intervention to be saved, is that if they universe is ordered and fine tuned to xx.xx to the powers of xxxxxxx and made for us and intelligently designed, and imagine the full weight of these arguments and its subtleties, then why is there even a galaxy heading towards us in the first place?
It counteracts all those points.

And if we are to be saved anyway by a miraculous intervention at the last second then its just plain old showmanship, because it's just for show - God being a savior in a movie script for then God rolled that other galaxy at us, just to save us. There is no purpose to what's happening except to just be saved at the last moment.

Of course, on this last argument you can say that this is false but then you will have to give up purpose, fine tuned, ordered, made for man, universe. Or you can admit it's random and we are really in danger and then God can or will save us.
But you can't have both. You can't say the universe is perfect, ordered, fine-tuned, intelligently designed and made for us and we are also in danger, on a death roll because in all that purpose there is another galaxy heading towards us to send us to oblivion.

This is a problem, I hope you can show me how you manage it.

Edit: Stu, do you know that humanity was almost wiped once before...no talking way past Noah, our numbers dwindled down to a few thousand in Africa. So the chances of humanity being wiped out are close enough in the past to show that close encounters can happen. I don't think your statement of God's creatures in his image can't be wiped out really stands.

P.S This is infact the same error Phil committed in another thread where he vigorously defended the reality of the scriptures, its inerrancy, about its miraculous preservation by God throughout the ages and how they can't be mythical stories and etc and then when asked about Joshua praying for the sun and moon to stop called them literalisms which no one with theological knowledge would take seriously. Even from an opposing position I was disappointed by that answer.

You need to be consistent, you can't have both.

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:
First of all, galaxies collide all the time. And second if God is capable why doesn't he stop earthquake and Tsunami?

Because one is a global killer and would wipe out humanity, and the other is on a smaller scale.

So killing people in small numbers is alright?
I don't think you will like where this argument will reach.

No one is saying God isn't capable. I am saying he doesn't do that anymore on sea scales (parting the seas) or cosmic ones, stars explode, galaxies collide etc.


How do you know that He doesn't? Look at all the impact craters on the moon. How do you know that He doesn't prevent or redirect the big ones from hitting earth.

Look at earth, just a few days ago one (small one) passed right close to us and found out two days in promixity to earth.

But we're not talking about meteors anymore, we're talking about a galaxy, which on average contains a hundred billion stars, many, larger than our suns and their own systems and planets and debris belts etc.

This isn't really an objection, in my opinion, Stu. I can say how do you know you will go to heaven? You will just say you believe or something along the line. But it doesn't matter what you or I think. The validity of our statements should be rooted in reality. That is what counts. We must face facts, whether we like them or not.

So what if it contains a galaxy, God created the universe He can unmake it or just prevent a collision.

In other words you don't know, and neither do I, whether God does interfere on our behalf.

So killing people in small numbers is alright?
I don't think you will like where this argument will reach.

That's not what I said - it would wipe out humanity completely, there would be nothing left, His creation in His image (mankind) would be gone.

An earthquake might kill a couple people, but you take that risk if you live in an earthquake zone. As long as they know Jesus then they go to heaven.

Do you want God to micro-manage all our lives, or do you want autonomy? Do you know how many earthquakes occur around the planet everyday, must God stop all the earthquakes.

Freewill allows us to live in quake-free zones or build quake-resistant houses. Freewill would be negated if He micro-managed our lives.

Edit: I guess some of us would mind and others would not mind if God micro-managed our lives.

The point which you and Crochet and some others have missed incidentally while being quite defensive of the hopeful miraculous intervention to be saved, is that if they universe is ordered and fine tuned to xx.xx to the powers of xxxxxxx and made for us and intelligently designed, and imagine the full weight of these arguments and its subtleties, then why is there even a galaxy heading towards us in the first place?
It counteracts all those points.

And if we are to be saved anyway by a miraculous intervention at the last second then its just plain old showmanship, because it's just for show - God being a savior in a movie script for then God rolled that other galaxy at us, just to save us. There is no purpose to what's happening except to just be saved at the last moment.

Of course, on this last argument you can say that this is false but then you will have to give up purpose, fine tuned, ordered, made for man, universe. Or you can admit it's random and we are really in danger and then God can or will save us.
But you can't have both. You can't say the universe is perfect, ordered, fine-tuned, intelligently designed and made for us and we are also in danger, on a death roll because in all that purpose there is another galaxy heading towards us to send us to oblivion.

This is a problem, I hope you can show me how you manage it.

Edit: Stu, do you know that humanity was almost wiped once before...no talking way past Noah, our numbers dwindled down to a few thousand in Africa. So the chances of humanity being wiped out are close enough in the past to show that close encounters can happen. I don't think your statement of God's creatures in his image can't be wiped out really stands.

P.S This is infact the same error Phil committed in another thread where he vigorously defended the reality of the scriptures, its inerrancy, about its miraculous preservation by God throughout the ages and how they can't be mythical stories and etc and then when asked about Joshua praying for the sun and moon to stop called them literalisms which no one with theological knowledge would take seriously. Even from an opposing position I was disappointed by that answer.

You need to be consistent, you can't have both.

What if God created the universe (including earth) and then left it to it's own devices, to unfold as it may, kinda like He did with humanity.

So now the universe and all the cosmological processes are unfolding which includes meteors hitting earths atmosphere and meteorites hitting the earth.

So a galaxy is on a collision course for earth through natural means - so God intervenes. No problem.

You think God using His powers is showmanship - so frikken what I say!!!!! Didn't God save Daniel twice from death by lions and then fire, what about all the other miracles He performed in the Bible - is that showmanship too. Besides if He did save us from a collision would that be a good thing and convert a lot of atheists...

No, the showmanship aspect is all on YOU. You consider it showmanship for whatever reason (which I find quite ridiculous and distasteful, I call it God showing mercy.

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Question Hugh, would you say that God "made" animal life, even if they came out of the earth? Both forms are in Genesis, back to back. E.g., Genesis 1:24-25 reads:

• 24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

I know indirectly, it can be said God made, but I guess more if you're comfortable with ultimately God being responsible for all that was made. I'm assuming you would be. I don't have anything behind asking, was merely wondering.

Neo-X, what about you; I know you feel uncomfortable thinking that God guided, but then even back at the universes creation with everything set in motion. Would you say God "made" life and each species as such in virtue of how the universe was "ignited" by God in the very beginning?

To be honest with you, with what I have been reading lately in some research in QM, I think it could be shown with confidence in then near future that the universe could come out of nothing (and the rate of expansion we have, we'll have nothing in teh coming time), as mind-boggling as it sounds.

But to your question, I would agree that God made something which led to a universe and life. And I am not saying this just to be technically correct. It's just what I see or don't see and I don't know how else to say it.

I would love to say God designed but I don't see design at all. I don't see purposed-function. Did God made life? I think I'd be comfortable in saying God intended us. How? through really random processes.

When looking into our universe coming from nothing, consider whether the "nothing" defined ("nothing in space and time") really is an absolute nothing? There is an equivocation fallacy of sorts, or at worst, those like Krauss misrepresent what nothingness fundamentally means.

Accepting as a given Krauss arguments at face value, that our universe came from nothing, no prior substance, seems like science ironically aligning with Scripture. Though, I know it's not the same. Discussion can still be had over fine-tuning arguments and how our universe appears designed for consciousness and sapient life (i.e, Anthropic Cosmological Principle), which based upon your comments you don't appear to recognise or be taken by.

As for my own reflections, it seems to me that QM in fact minimally questions and maximally turns on its head what science has traditionally held to. Namely, that we are passive observers. In any case, I'm more interested in your response to my above question, although here's a video you might/might not enjoy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ie9musGEqQ

Let me talk about the video first;
1. I think that it's not a good video, instead of lecturing in a sensible way it does patch-work taking lots of various sources, some out of context and makes them coherent. Reminded of systematic theology actually.

2. QM particles can exist in a vacuum, they don't need space to be there. That is infact why we say that the singularity had no space or time. Because both these things came after. They have zero energy.

3. Reality is an illusion is only superficial at best and at QM what science means is that you can't really see what's happening completely, because of the uncertainty principle, which is true in QM only, where if you see a particle in one state you can't see or know it in another and it is that reality of how a particle can be in two states at the same time is what is astounding. Talk about omnipresence. And that if you mix it with common sense non-QM states which we are used to see and experience is when it doesn't make sense because at QM Newtonian physics don't apply. It has its own laws. And that is how you get a video like that because it tries to do that exactly.

4. The main point is that currently, the universe can come out of a quantum state is only plausible. We don't know how exactly that happened and infact if you listen to Krauss he maintains the same. The string theory is another contender - that quantum fluctuations between 11 dimensions cause space and time to ripple out like an aftereffect. And therefore a multiverse is possible too.

5. The energy of quantum particles in a vacuum is zero...why? because they are virtual particles. Krauss is not misrepresenting it. Nothing actually means a field of quantum fluctuation with zero energy. Nothing doesn't mean space and time or lack of quantum fluctuations like the video represents, or shall I say misrepresents. And if you clear that out, then the critique of it falls short because that isn't Krauss' argument.

I would encourage you to actually read Krauss' book, if you haven't already. I think you will be in a better position to see it in full, the picture I mean and critique it accordingly. And of course that is something I'd be interested to hear from you.

If someone asked you, why do you believe in God, what would you present as your reasons?

My own experience. The beauty of a relationship with a personal God. God being the first mover/master chain link. OM.

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:
Because one is a global killer and would wipe out humanity, and the other is on a smaller scale.

So killing people in small numbers is alright?
I don't think you will like where this argument will reach.

No one is saying God isn't capable. I am saying he doesn't do that anymore on sea scales (parting the seas) or cosmic ones, stars explode, galaxies collide etc.


How do you know that He doesn't? Look at all the impact craters on the moon. How do you know that He doesn't prevent or redirect the big ones from hitting earth.

Look at earth, just a few days ago one (small one) passed right close to us and found out two days in promixity to earth.

But we're not talking about meteors anymore, we're talking about a galaxy, which on average contains a hundred billion stars, many, larger than our suns and their own systems and planets and debris belts etc.

This isn't really an objection, in my opinion, Stu. I can say how do you know you will go to heaven? You will just say you believe or something along the line. But it doesn't matter what you or I think. The validity of our statements should be rooted in reality. That is what counts. We must face facts, whether we like them or not.

So what if it contains a galaxy, God created the universe He can unmake it or just prevent a collision.

In other words you don't know, and neither do I, whether God does interfere on our behalf.

So killing people in small numbers is alright?
I don't think you will like where this argument will reach.

That's not what I said - it would wipe out humanity completely, there would be nothing left, His creation in His image (mankind) would be gone.

An earthquake might kill a couple people, but you take that risk if you live in an earthquake zone. As long as they know Jesus then they go to heaven.

Do you want God to micro-manage all our lives, or do you want autonomy? Do you know how many earthquakes occur around the planet everyday, must God stop all the earthquakes.

Freewill allows us to live in quake-free zones or build quake-resistant houses. Freewill would be negated if He micro-managed our lives.

Edit: I guess some of us would mind and others would not mind if God micro-managed our lives.

The point which you and Crochet and some others have missed incidentally while being quite defensive of the hopeful miraculous intervention to be saved, is that if they universe is ordered and fine tuned to xx.xx to the powers of xxxxxxx and made for us and intelligently designed, and imagine the full weight of these arguments and its subtleties, then why is there even a galaxy heading towards us in the first place?
It counteracts all those points.

And if we are to be saved anyway by a miraculous intervention at the last second then its just plain old showmanship, because it's just for show - God being a savior in a movie script for then God rolled that other galaxy at us, just to save us. There is no purpose to what's happening except to just be saved at the last moment.

Of course, on this last argument you can say that this is false but then you will have to give up purpose, fine tuned, ordered, made for man, universe. Or you can admit it's random and we are really in danger and then God can or will save us.
But you can't have both. You can't say the universe is perfect, ordered, fine-tuned, intelligently designed and made for us and we are also in danger, on a death roll because in all that purpose there is another galaxy heading towards us to send us to oblivion.

This is a problem, I hope you can show me how you manage it.

Edit: Stu, do you know that humanity was almost wiped once before...no talking way past Noah, our numbers dwindled down to a few thousand in Africa. So the chances of humanity being wiped out are close enough in the past to show that close encounters can happen. I don't think your statement of God's creatures in his image can't be wiped out really stands.

P.S This is infact the same error Phil committed in another thread where he vigorously defended the reality of the scriptures, its inerrancy, about its miraculous preservation by God throughout the ages and how they can't be mythical stories and etc and then when asked about Joshua praying for the sun and moon to stop called them literalisms which no one with theological knowledge would take seriously. Even from an opposing position I was disappointed by that answer.

You need to be consistent, you can't have both.

What if God created the universe (including earth) and then left it to it's own devices, to unfold as it may, kinda like He did with humanity.

You mean a universe evolving randomly...then you do give up fine tuning and the rest entails.

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote: So killing people in small numbers is alright?
I don't think you will like where this argument will reach.


Look at earth, just a few days ago one (small one) passed right close to us and found out two days in promixity to earth.

But we're not talking about meteors anymore, we're talking about a galaxy, which on average contains a hundred billion stars, many, larger than our suns and their own systems and planets and debris belts etc.

This isn't really an objection, in my opinion, Stu. I can say how do you know you will go to heaven? You will just say you believe or something along the line. But it doesn't matter what you or I think. The validity of our statements should be rooted in reality. That is what counts. We must face facts, whether we like them or not.

So what if it contains a galaxy, God created the universe He can unmake it or just prevent a collision.

In other words you don't know, and neither do I, whether God does interfere on our behalf.

So killing people in small numbers is alright?
I don't think you will like where this argument will reach.

That's not what I said - it would wipe out humanity completely, there would be nothing left, His creation in His image (mankind) would be gone.

An earthquake might kill a couple people, but you take that risk if you live in an earthquake zone. As long as they know Jesus then they go to heaven.

Do you want God to micro-manage all our lives, or do you want autonomy? Do you know how many earthquakes occur around the planet everyday, must God stop all the earthquakes.

Freewill allows us to live in quake-free zones or build quake-resistant houses. Freewill would be negated if He micro-managed our lives.

Edit: I guess some of us would mind and others would not mind if God micro-managed our lives.

The point which you and Crochet and some others have missed incidentally while being quite defensive of the hopeful miraculous intervention to be saved, is that if they universe is ordered and fine tuned to xx.xx to the powers of xxxxxxx and made for us and intelligently designed, and imagine the full weight of these arguments and its subtleties, then why is there even a galaxy heading towards us in the first place?
It counteracts all those points.

And if we are to be saved anyway by a miraculous intervention at the last second then its just plain old showmanship, because it's just for show - God being a savior in a movie script for then God rolled that other galaxy at us, just to save us. There is no purpose to what's happening except to just be saved at the last moment.

Of course, on this last argument you can say that this is false but then you will have to give up purpose, fine tuned, ordered, made for man, universe. Or you can admit it's random and we are really in danger and then God can or will save us.
But you can't have both. You can't say the universe is perfect, ordered, fine-tuned, intelligently designed and made for us and we are also in danger, on a death roll because in all that purpose there is another galaxy heading towards us to send us to oblivion.

This is a problem, I hope you can show me how you manage it.

Edit: Stu, do you know that humanity was almost wiped once before...no talking way past Noah, our numbers dwindled down to a few thousand in Africa. So the chances of humanity being wiped out are close enough in the past to show that close encounters can happen. I don't think your statement of God's creatures in his image can't be wiped out really stands.

P.S This is infact the same error Phil committed in another thread where he vigorously defended the reality of the scriptures, its inerrancy, about its miraculous preservation by God throughout the ages and how they can't be mythical stories and etc and then when asked about Joshua praying for the sun and moon to stop called them literalisms which no one with theological knowledge would take seriously. Even from an opposing position I was disappointed by that answer.

You need to be consistent, you can't have both.

What if God created the universe (including earth) and then left it to it's own devices, to unfold as it may, kinda like He did with humanity.

You mean a universe evolving randomly...then you do give up fine tuning and the rest entails.

No, God creates a fine-tuned universe (including planets elements, man, animals, etc.). Then He leaves it to play out as it may.

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:
So what if it contains a galaxy, God created the universe He can unmake it or just prevent a collision.

In other words you don't know, and neither do I, whether God does interfere on our behalf.



That's not what I said - it would wipe out humanity completely, there would be nothing left, His creation in His image (mankind) would be gone.

An earthquake might kill a couple people, but you take that risk if you live in an earthquake zone. As long as they know Jesus then they go to heaven.

Do you want God to micro-manage all our lives, or do you want autonomy? Do you know how many earthquakes occur around the planet everyday, must God stop all the earthquakes.

Freewill allows us to live in quake-free zones or build quake-resistant houses. Freewill would be negated if He micro-managed our lives.

Edit: I guess some of us would mind and others would not mind if God micro-managed our lives.

The point which you and Crochet and some others have missed incidentally while being quite defensive of the hopeful miraculous intervention to be saved, is that if they universe is ordered and fine tuned to xx.xx to the powers of xxxxxxx and made for us and intelligently designed, and imagine the full weight of these arguments and its subtleties, then why is there even a galaxy heading towards us in the first place?
It counteracts all those points.

And if we are to be saved anyway by a miraculous intervention at the last second then its just plain old showmanship, because it's just for show - God being a savior in a movie script for then God rolled that other galaxy at us, just to save us. There is no purpose to what's happening except to just be saved at the last moment.

Of course, on this last argument you can say that this is false but then you will have to give up purpose, fine tuned, ordered, made for man, universe. Or you can admit it's random and we are really in danger and then God can or will save us.
But you can't have both. You can't say the universe is perfect, ordered, fine-tuned, intelligently designed and made for us and we are also in danger, on a death roll because in all that purpose there is another galaxy heading towards us to send us to oblivion.

This is a problem, I hope you can show me how you manage it.

Edit: Stu, do you know that humanity was almost wiped once before...no talking way past Noah, our numbers dwindled down to a few thousand in Africa. So the chances of humanity being wiped out are close enough in the past to show that close encounters can happen. I don't think your statement of God's creatures in his image can't be wiped out really stands.

P.S This is infact the same error Phil committed in another thread where he vigorously defended the reality of the scriptures, its inerrancy, about its miraculous preservation by God throughout the ages and how they can't be mythical stories and etc and then when asked about Joshua praying for the sun and moon to stop called them literalisms which no one with theological knowledge would take seriously. Even from an opposing position I was disappointed by that answer.

You need to be consistent, you can't have both.

What if God created the universe (including earth) and then left it to it's own devices, to unfold as it may, kinda like He did with humanity.

You mean a universe evolving randomly...then you do give up fine tuning and the rest entails.

No, God creates a fine-tuned universe (including planets elements, man, animals, etc.). Then He leaves it to play out as it may.

You do understand these are two mutually exclusive things.

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:
The point which you and Crochet and some others have missed incidentally while being quite defensive of the hopeful miraculous intervention to be saved, is that if they universe is ordered and fine tuned to xx.xx to the powers of xxxxxxx and made for us and intelligently designed, and imagine the full weight of these arguments and its subtleties, then why is there even a galaxy heading towards us in the first place?
It counteracts all those points.

And if we are to be saved anyway by a miraculous intervention at the last second then its just plain old showmanship, because it's just for show - God being a savior in a movie script for then God rolled that other galaxy at us, just to save us. There is no purpose to what's happening except to just be saved at the last moment.

Of course, on this last argument you can say that this is false but then you will have to give up purpose, fine tuned, ordered, made for man, universe. Or you can admit it's random and we are really in danger and then God can or will save us.
But you can't have both. You can't say the universe is perfect, ordered, fine-tuned, intelligently designed and made for us and we are also in danger, on a death roll because in all that purpose there is another galaxy heading towards us to send us to oblivion.

This is a problem, I hope you can show me how you manage it.

Edit: Stu, do you know that humanity was almost wiped once before...no talking way past Noah, our numbers dwindled down to a few thousand in Africa. So the chances of humanity being wiped out are close enough in the past to show that close encounters can happen. I don't think your statement of God's creatures in his image can't be wiped out really stands.

P.S This is infact the same error Phil committed in another thread where he vigorously defended the reality of the scriptures, its inerrancy, about its miraculous preservation by God throughout the ages and how they can't be mythical stories and etc and then when asked about Joshua praying for the sun and moon to stop called them literalisms which no one with theological knowledge would take seriously. Even from an opposing position I was disappointed by that answer.

You need to be consistent, you can't have both.

What if God created the universe (including earth) and then left it to it's own devices, to unfold as it may, kinda like He did with humanity.

You mean a universe evolving randomly...then you do give up fine tuning and the rest entails.

No, God creates a fine-tuned universe (including planets elements, man, animals, etc.). Then He leaves it to play out as it may.

You do understand these are two mutually exclusive things.

That's just ridiculous.

Tell me why God can't create a fine-tuned universe with all it's laws, planets and life and then just leave it to unfold.

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:
What if God created the universe (including earth) and then left it to it's own devices, to unfold as it may, kinda like He did with humanity.

You mean a universe evolving randomly...then you do give up fine tuning and the rest entails.

No, God creates a fine-tuned universe (including planets elements, man, animals, etc.). Then He leaves it to play out as it may.

You do understand these are two mutually exclusive things.

That's just ridiculous.

Tell me why God can't create a fine-tuned universe with all it's laws, planets and life and then just leave it to unfold.

Because that is what fine tuning entails...what happens when you finely tune something? the results show the fine tuning. It is predictable based on the parameters defined in the fine-tuning phase. When something doesn't have fine tuning it behaves unpredictably because it hasn't been fine-tuned. So a universe which is fine-tuned will behave like a fine tuned universe it won't act natural or unpredictable to the fine tuning parameters nor go against the purpose of fine tuning. Because that makes the whole point of fine tuning null and void, redundant.

So you are saying the exact opposite things. You are saying God made a contradiction, an absurdity. God fine tuned a universe to unfold randomly on its own?

I am sorry but it's silly.

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote: You mean a universe evolving randomly...then you do give up fine tuning and the rest entails.

No, God creates a fine-tuned universe (including planets elements, man, animals, etc.). Then He leaves it to play out as it may.

You do understand these are two mutually exclusive things.

That's just ridiculous.

Tell me why God can't create a fine-tuned universe with all it's laws, planets and life and then just leave it to unfold.

Because that is what fine tuning entails...what happens when you finely tune something? the results show the fine tuning. It is predictable based on the parameters defined in the fine-tuning phase. When something doesn't have fine tuning it behaves unpredictably because it hasn't been fine-tuned. So a universe which is fine-tuned will behave like a fine tuned universe it won't act natural or unpredictable to the fine tuning parameters nor go against the purpose of fine tuning. Because that makes the whole point of fine tuning null and void, redundant.

So you are saying the exact opposite things. You are saying God made a contradiction, an absurdity. God fine tuned a universe to unfold randomly on its own?

I am sorry but it's silly.

Dude come on now, you're just being silly.

A fine-tuned universe only means that certain constants and conditions were set in place, like the following:

Cosmic Constants
(1) Gravitational force constant
(2) Electromagnetic force constant
(3) Strong nuclear force constant
(4) Weak nuclear force constant
(5) Cosmological constant

Initial Conditions and “Brute Facts”
(6) Initial distribution of mass energy
(7) Ratio of masses for protons and electrons
(8) Velocity of light
(9) Mass excess of neutron over proton

“Local” Planetary Conditions
285
(10) Steady plate tectonics with right kind of geological interior
(11) Right amount of water in crust
(12) Large moon with right rotation period
(13) Proper concentration of sulfur
(14) Right planetary mass
(15) Near inner edge of circumstellar habitable zone
(16) Low-eccentricity orbit outside spin-orbit and giant planet
resonances
(17) A few, large Jupiter-mass planetary neighbors in large circular
orbits
(18) Outside spiral arm of galaxy
(19) Near co-rotation circle of galaxy, in circular orbit around galactic center
(20) Within the galactic habitable zone
(21) During the cosmic habitable age

Effects of Primary Fine-Tuning Parameters
(22) The polarity of the water molecule


While God was designing the universe He put the constants and conditions in place; He also created matter, planets, water, etc. Once He was finished what you had was a universe that could function on it's own without the need for God to interfere.

He created the sun and the earth which revolves around it. He then worked His wonder on earth, including man.

What about man is he also not fine-tuned to a degree to the planet - water, food, etc. yet he can be left to unfold on his own as well.

Fine-tuning doesn't mean you won't get the odd rogue meteorite or asteroid, it refers to that which governs the universe, not that which is in the universe.

It's like a software program on a computer - you create a world with all the rules that govern it through the software. Say it was a game like Warcraft - once you have completed the game there is no need for the developer anymore, it functions on it's own.

It's like playing a game of Warcraft.

Ok stu. Then why would God interfere? Whatever he tuned is what will happen in the game. One of the many outcomes of his tuning is that earthquakes happen. Stars explode. Galaxies collide. It's the results of his own tuning.
I find it odd that first you say God created the earth and sun around the constants and forces and then you agree that the whole point is not to interfere. And i agree with you. But its cheating now to say that for one event the developer will jump back in the game because his code screwed up and will self destruct. The developer obviously made a mistake or didn't intelligently designed the system enough to work in its own since it shows that it can't. It needs the developer to interfere.

Stu. The whole point of an automated self sustainable system is that it is designed to be such. In case of God. The ultimate intelligent designer who can make no mistake nor overlook or miss some slight details. A system from such designer should work as intended. It just shows bad on the designer that he has to interfere in such a system because that entails that self sustainable system is really not that. Either this designer is incapable of making such system or he made a mistake. But you can't say everything is fine tuned and then say a glitch appears that may wipe out the very thing for whom the entire system is made. That is not the purpose of the system. It's the very opposite of it. So the designer intervenes but that as I said above is only because the designer failed to make the self sustainable system

neo-x wrote:Let me talk about the video first;
1. I think that it's not a good video, instead of lecturing in a sensible way it does patch-work taking lots of various sources, some out of context and makes them coherent. Reminded of systematic theology actually.

It's not that kind of audience (i.e., as in university where a professor lectures students). His arguments and presentation I believe is sound. Provided he's not misrepresenting anyone, and I don't believe he is?

neo-x wrote:2. QM particles can exist in a vacuum, they don't need space to be there. That is infact why we say that the singularity had no space or time. Because both these things came after. They have zero energy.

A vacuum is generally defined as space entirely devoid of matter. Also, re: the singularity, before such there was no space or time, yet it is said that space-time curves infinitely within such. There are many ideas floating around though, and many nuances perhaps, so it's no good having a discussion without being on same page of a specific idea.

neo-x wrote:3. Reality is an illusion is only superficial at best and at QM what science means is that you can't really see what's happening completely, because of the uncertainty principle, which is true in QM only, where if you see a particle in one state you can't see or know it in another and it is that reality of how a particle can be in two states at the same time is what is astounding. Talk about omnipresence. And that if you mix it with common sense non-QM states which we are used to see and experience is when it doesn't make sense because at QM Newtonian physics don't apply. It has its own laws. And that is how you get a video like that because it tries to do that exactly.

Whether or not reality is an illusion (which I don't believe it is), it could simply be the case that a Realist view of the world, what you see is what you get, is actually failing. Consciousness is just as much a real part of our world, as is physical matter. The two I believe are much more closely aligned than many realise. Measurements affecting QM outcomes, case in point. This also isn't held by a few, but many are accepting the fact that observation does in fact affect states of reality. We are not mere passive observers of reality, but also influence it to a degree. Happy to disagree here, but perhaps in future it'd make for an interesting discussion.

neo-x wrote:4. The main point is that currently, the universe can come out of a quantum state is only plausible. We don't know how exactly that happened and infact if you listen to Krauss he maintains the same. The string theory is another contender - that quantum fluctuations between 11 dimensions cause space and time to ripple out like an aftereffect. And therefore a multiverse is possible too.

5. The energy of quantum particles in a vacuum is zero...why? because they are virtual particles. Krauss is not misrepresenting it. Nothing actually means a field of quantum fluctuation with zero energy. Nothing doesn't mean space and time or lack of quantum fluctuations like the video represents, or shall I say misrepresents. And if you clear that out, then the critique of it falls short because that isn't Krauss' argument.

Krauss does redefine "nothing" and has often criticised philosophy, which defines such more tightly. Many also accuse him of misleading what this "nothingness" is when talking. Though if one reads what he is actually saying, then such is just what he believes.

Here is a write up on Krauss by Australian ABC in their Ethics & Relgion column (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles ... 474830.htm):

• Most of the scientific ideas contained in this book were not new to me, given other works I have read. Two things did interest me: the question of "nothing" and the increasing role given to the theory of a multiverse as an explanatory principle in cosmology.
  
  As Krauss notes, much hangs on what we mean by nothing. His excoriating barbs at philosophers and theologians refer to their imprecision in regard to the meaning of "nothing." He, on the other hand, has a perfectly clear understanding of what he means by nothing. As he repeats often enough to be a mantra, nothing means "empty space." Indeed:
  
  "'Nothing' is every bit as physical as 'something', especially if it is to be defined as the 'absence of something'."
  Their failure to realise this indicates the "intellectual bankruptcy" of "much of modern theology and some modern philosophy." Indeed:
  
  "By nothing I do not mean nothing, but rather nothing - in this case, the nothingness we normally call empty space."

Yet, you are correct that such is an incomplete picture of Krauss' view. To complete his concept of "nothing", he also throws in space itself rather than merely leaving his conception at "empty space". Krauss' theorising eventually leads to "nothing" also incorporating space itself. To continue that same article:

• .... acknowledging that empty space-time is not what theologians and philosophers mean by nothing, Krauss is forced to push the argument further, and evokes as yet untested and incomplete theories of quantum gravitation.
  
  "As I have defined it thus far, the relevant 'nothing' from which our observed 'something' arises is 'empty space'. However, once we allow for the merging of quantum mechanics and general relativity, we can extend this argument to the case where space itself is forced into existence."
  
  Undeterred by the fact that no such merging of quantum mechanics and general relativity exists as yet, so what it predicts is far from clear, we are told that such a merging requires the popping into existence of space-time itself.

In any case, the above presents a more complete view, I'm not sure where it leaves our discussion at though. You're right, that "nothing" isn't just "empty space" however such is used by Krauss as part of his logic in helping people conceive of his ideas on "nothing".

I was more interested in your reasons for why you believe in God. It seems you're drawing from personal experience, rather than rational argument. I'd encourage you, in addition to the science, to also look into philosophical arguments. I mean, speaking for myself, growing up solely with spiritual experience, it was also great when I started developing good reasons for belief. William Craig's Reasonable Faith, was a great start for me, and one book I'd recommend to all Christians. I don't know if I could have retained belief in experience alone, without rationality also aligning.

PS. As a side note, Hugh Ross of RTB is actually a fan of String Theory in his books, though he has an evangelical agenda mixed in with his cosmology. To him, he sees such explains in a logical manner, how God can be transcendent, though I digress God is at all hyper-dimensional which doesn't really boil down to the same thing as being completely transcendent. Nonetheless, 11 dimensions, 7 or 8 of which kind of froze earlier on in our universe's expansion, it is an interesting theoretical physics. One which that recent Interstellar movie kind of based its sci-fism around.

Neo-X wrote:I would encourage you to actually read Krauss' book, if you haven't already. I think you will be in a better position to see it in full, the picture I mean and critique it accordingly. And of course that is something I'd be interested to hear from you.

Yes, I should read his book before critiquing his concepts, such is otherwise unfair of me. But then, he is also very vocal and says much in debates, discussions, on YouTube, in articles and the like. A lot of understanding can be had through such, and also via second hand sources interpretation his positions (especially where have common understand of Krauss' ideas).

Being one of the prominent figures amongst the New Atheist movement, he's certainly got bias and an agenda, which always comes through in his jibes towards folk who believe God exists. So, to be honest, I'm not sure I could stomach his book, any more than he could reading AiG materials. If only his presentation and manner was different...

Neo-X wrote:

K wrote:If someone asked you, why do you believe in God, what would you present as your reasons?

My own experience. The beauty of a relationship with a personal God. God being the first mover/master chain link. OM.

This actually form's Craig's last "argument" whenever he debates non-Christians; people being able to directly experience God in a personal relationship through Christ. I'm curious, Christians interpret such differently, but what does that relationship look like, that it gives you such proof needed? Other non-Christians here, I'm sure their interest would be at least slighting piqued to hear you elaborate.

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:3. Reality is an illusion is only superficial at best and at QM what science means is that you can't really see what's happening completely, because of the uncertainty principle, which is true in QM only, where if you see a particle in one state you can't see or know it in another and it is that reality of how a particle can be in two states at the same time is what is astounding. Talk about omnipresence. And that if you mix it with common sense non-QM states which we are used to see and experience is when it doesn't make sense because at QM Newtonian physics don't apply. It has its own laws. And that is how you get a video like that because it tries to do that exactly.

Or, if could simply be the case that a Realism scenario of the world, what you see is what you get, is actually failing. Consciousness is just as much apart of the fabric in our world, as is physical matter. The two I believe are much more closely aligned than many realise. Measurements affecting QM outcomes, case in point. This also isn't held by a few, but many professional scientists are accepting the fact that observation affects states of reality. We are not mere observers of reality, but also influence it. We can disagree here, but perhaps in future it'd make for an interesting discussion.

Oh, I agree completely K. In one sense this is what I think really happens. And this is what the uncertainty principle entails. That if you observe a particle you change its state. In one sense you have affected reality, before our observing the particle was in two states and we didn't know which, but now that we know, reality got forked from potential reality, so to say.

What I object to, is to call it an illusion, which the narrator of the video did.

I just fine-tuned some parts of my last post. Nothing major, just shaving the edges to ensure more clarity in my thought.

As for the narrator, I'd have to re-listen to it (we each focus on different statements). He does believe in Idealism, which isn't necessarily the same as an illusion. He may have been using such as a passing point, that there is more than meets the eye to an objective reality being experienced externally that is indifferent to us, and that such therefore can could be considered illusory. I'll have another re-listen though.

I've seen other videos of his where he rules out the thought that simply because the world is idealistic such doesn't mean it is in fact not real or completely illusory. We're experiencing something real and true, it's more that about the fundamental nature of this reality that we are experiencing.

Just re-watched it, and found where he mentioned illusion here: https://youtu.be/_ie9musGEqQ?t=4m57s

I'd agree with you, that we can't say the world is illusory. And, after re-watching I'm more confident the author of that video doesn't believe that either.

Note, he doesn't call it illusion per se, but rather reasons that "a quantum state causing the universe" (which Krauss reasons for), points to "an underlying reality more fundamental than the physical, meaning there is a nature more fundamental than the physical universe or space-time." (the narrator actually doesn't seem to be knocking Krauss' idea at this point, but rather thinking through the logical implications of such).

He continues, "The physical is a mere emergent effect of this fundamental nature" (i.e., Krauss' quantum state). "In other words the universe would be sort of like a hologram or illusion." Note, he's saying it is "sort of like" a hologram or illusion (rather than actually being a hologram or illusion), if what we see and experience in the physical world actually emerges from a deeper fundamental reality than the physical world itself.

I find it all very interesting, the questions where modern theoretical physics, and even ideas like Krauss', lead us with metaphysical considerations of reality. The crossover just shows, I think, how science and philosophy aren't necessarily competing pursuits in knowledge, but actually have a more intimate relationship than many people realise.

hughfarey wrote:I'm sorry if I read more than was intended into the idea of biological plasticity, and do agree that, in the absence of any mutation or mistranscription of genetic material, the 'gene-pool' of any group of interbreeding animals would not allow for such major variations from the norm as could be easily recognised as different animals.

Although this is not a useful description of what actually happens, I think the point is that it emphasises the role that mutation and mistranscription must play in producing new kinds of organisms, and directs attention to the claim that these processes are invariably destructive, and therefore cannot be considered as evolutionary diversifiers. The corollary is that without a working mechanism, the theory of evolution must be considered incomplete, or simply wrong.

Evolutionists, of course, say that the claim is unfounded. Comparisons between similar species DNA often show single specific differences which have clearly proved beneficial, and laboratory experiments demonstrate individual instances. This is a good illustration, I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8. No doubt abelcainsbrother will say 'the bacteria are still bacteria', but that's not the point. The point is that the claim that mutation cannot be beneficial to an organism is disproved, and that therefore, mutation as a possible working mechanism for evolution has not been discredited.

I don't want to get too hung up on the definition of 'random'. As I explained, there is no such thing as a completely random event. All random events happen within a framework, and that framework itself may be far from random. The toss of a dice cannot result in a 7, however randomly tossed it be. The rewind of the universe to the big bang can only be researched within the context of rigid and immutable laws, and, as we have explored before, the speculation regarding the origin of these laws is more philosophical than scientific. Explorations into the randomness of evolution all happen, whether by atheists or theists, within a non-random context. If this means that evolution is therefore not truly random, then I dare say atheists would agree. What they wouldn't agree with, I guess, is that because the observed universe runs to non-random laws, that therefore it must be designed, and must have a purpose. And discussion about that, as I say, is philosophical, not scientific. Once the laws of physics are accepted, then there is no observable difference (yet!), between theistic and atheistic evolution.

I know you doubt me and what I've explained but despite what you want to believe,I'm right and I think you're close to realizing it. Rewatch the video about bacteria and think about how they are just documenting normal variation amongst a population,and in this population it is bacteria.

But how can you allow them to claim the bacteria evolved because of mutations when we are only seeing normal variation amongst its population? How are mutations so important when you're only getting normal variation? Think of a new kind of dog breed being produced,you don't think if you put it under a microscope you would be able to detect changes? But still,it's only normal variation,so who cares about mutations,speciation,natural selection,adaptation,etc?They have no effect on the bacteria because you're just getting normal variation.

I never doubted life can adapt but not the way evolutionists define adaptation and explain what it leads to.If you go back over the video you see only normal variation amongst the population of bacteria and from this you assume life evolves and see what you want to. You are overlooking that the evidence does not even come close to demonstrating life evolves. It is just normal variation amongst a population.

Now if you disagree? Then I want you to explain why I'm wrong according to the video you posted. Explain why it is not just normal variation amongst a population,explain how it leads you to believe life evolves. Think of all of the different dog breeds as an example of normal variation amongst a population and think about how it is the same thing happening with the bacteria video you posted.

How is it different? Just because science says so? In other words, instead of must ignoring whar I've been explaining,deal with it honestly and I really believe you're going to realize what I've been explaining. But if not? Explain why and how it is evidence life evolves and is'nt just normal variation amongst a population.