Evidence for God from Science

ok, i'm 17 and have been keeping up with much of the science today. I believe in Evolution and that the world is 14 billion years old. I really want to believe in god, but the only 2 questions i have had impaired me from doing so, maybe if you can answer them, i'll have no doubt in his existance.

First question:
Many thiests uses the defense of "why is there something rather than absolute nothing?" and atheists respond to this by saying "why is there god rather than absolute nothing?", how would you theists respond to that?

Second question:
Many theists state that the universes is too complicated to have not been created by god, but atheists respond to this by saying if the universe is too complex that it needs a creator, then the creator must be even more complex than the universe and even more unlikely!

I've been debating about my faith a lot and after reading Antony Flews "There is a God" i believe i have stepped closer to theism, i just want to know if you guys can help me?

Hi Jak.

In answer to your first one - Even atheists are looking for the uncaused creator of everything. They have theories such as M-Theory and the quantum vacuum. We have God. We have concluded God because of the fine tuning of the universe and the probability of it happening by chance is zero. Atheists appeal to M-Theory and mutiverse because they can't let a supernatural foot in the door. It is all about the first cause.

In answer to your second question - never understood why atheists used that argument = it seems totally ridiculous. What is wrong with a more complex organism creating something simpler. Humans do it all the time. Plus William Lane Craig would argue that God is not complex at all as he is simply a spiritual mind, with no substance. Seems fairly simple to me.

Hope that helps

Silvertusk.

jakobpatterson wrote:ok, i'm 17 and have been keeping up with much of the science today. I believe in Evolution and that the world is 14 billion years old. I really want to believe in god, but the only 2 questions i have had impaired me from doing so, maybe if you can answer them, i'll have no doubt in his existance.

First question:
Many thiests uses the defense of "why is there something rather than absolute nothing?" and atheists respond to this by saying "why is there god rather than absolute nothing?", how would you theists respond to that?

We respond by saying from nothing nothing comes. Since there is something it must have come to be by an uncaused cause.

jakobpatterson wrote:Second question:
Many theists state that the universes is too complicated to have not been created by god, but atheists respond to this by saying if the universe is too complex that it needs a creator, then the creator must be even more complex than the universe and even more unlikely!

One of the central doctrines of classical theism is the simplicity of God so to state that God is more complex than the universe is totally false.

jakobpatterson wrote:I've been debating about my faith a lot and after reading Antony Flews "There is a God" i believe i have stepped closer to theism, i just want to know if you guys can help me?

I hope you keep stepping closer and closer. It is a wild journey but I assure you in the end it is totally rewarding .

Silvertusk wrote:Hi Jak.

In answer to your first one - Even atheists are looking for the uncaused creator of everything. They have theories such as M-Theory and the quantum vacuum. We have God. We have concluded God because of the fine tuning of the universe and the probability of it happening by chance is zero. Atheists appeal to M-Theory and mutiverse because they can't let a supernatural foot in the door. It is all about the first cause.

All of these theories (string, M, multi-verse, oscillating universe, etc, etc) do not in any way negate the first cause axiom. According to the BVG theorem, any universe (irrespective of what type it is) to be classified as anthropic (having the potential for life, any kind of life, not just intelligent one) must have an average Hubble expansion rate of greater than zero. And any universe that does have an average Hubble expansion rate greater than zero must have had a beginning. There is just no escaping it. They can postulate any number of universes they wish but every single one of them must have had a beginning if it is a life-supporting universe. And since infinite regress is untenable, a first uncaused cause is the ultimate and inescapable conclusion.

Silvertusk wrote:In answer to your second question - never understood why atheists used that argument = it seems totally ridiculous. What is wrong with a more complex organism creating something simpler. Humans do it all the time. Plus William Lane Craig would argue that God is not complex at all as he is simply a spiritual mind, with no substance. Seems fairly simple to me.

Hope that helps

Silvertusk.

Exactly.

Just an honest question, why does the multiverse need to have had a cause?

Seraph wrote:Just an honest question, why does the multiverse need to have had a cause?

Otherwise how did it come about? If it's an expanding multi-verse (or a multi-verse that produces expanding universes) then it had a beginning. That's what contemporary physics and cosmology tell us.

The multiverse isn't claimed to be fine tuned like our universe is and it didn't arise from the big bang like the universe, there really isn't anything that says that it has to have had a beginning. Since it's chaotic and not really fine tuned in any way, it doesn't suggest design like our universe on it's own suggests.

What I'm just wondering is what makes the idea of the multiverse being uncaused sound rediculous that can't also be applied to God?

Jakob,

Just a quick response to your second question. There are some Christiains and Theists who appeal to things unexplained as proof that God exists. This is sometimes known as the God of the Gaps argument. I don't buy it although I'm firmly a Theist and a Christian both. There's much unexplained that has been appealed to in the past as proof of God that has subsequently come to be explained and when that happens, it then begs the question if the God of the Gaps argument isn't valid does that serve as proof that God then doesn't exist? Both have the same flaw at their root. It assumes that God's purpose is explain that which is unexplained. That's a projection of man upon God and only that.

Flew's book is a good start. He really made some changes later in life after being considered the preeminant Atheist apologise. He never adopted Christianity that I know of, but he did move to what is best described as a deist position.

In your examination, consider that not all Christian arguments are flawless. When they are not, don't leap to the assumption that that means that things are cut and dried in the other direction. Evaluate the claims one by one on their own independent merits. Then too, consider that if God exists and has created you in His image that there is something within you as the image of God resonates with God's presence. That's called "spirit" commonly. Don't exclude that from your considerations. If God is real then it's not unreasonable to reasonably see other forces at work in the world and in your life than just the material.

Many at some point may ask as simple a prayer as, "God, if you're real, please help me to see and understand you."

blessings,

bart

Thanks for your responses, but i still have one question regarding my second question.

you guys say that god would simpler than his creation because he is a spirit, but wouldn't that be untrue because for a spirit to be able to have a mind to create all the small details in the universe, he must be pretty complex, not physically, but mentally.....and anyway, how would a spirit have a brain to think all of these things, if he isn't complex?

jakobpatterson wrote:Thanks for your responses, but i still have one question regarding my second question.

you guys say that god would simpler than his creation because he is a spirit, but wouldn't that be untrue because for a spirit to be able to have a mind to create all the small details in the universe, he must be pretty complex, not physically, but mentally.....and anyway, how would a spirit have a brain to think all of these things, if he isn't complex?

Jakob,

You're thinking materialistically. You appear to be assuming that God must have the same limitations as the physical universe He created (and yes my statement makes assumptions of its own too.)

Complexity is a relative term of comparison. In order for that comparison to have validity, both things being compared must have common qualities. By definition, that which is material is going to have limited points of comparison with that which is spiritual.

Not surprisingly, the presupposition that one makes in these realms tend to circle back and become the conclusions arrived at often as well.

blessings,

bart

Hi JP

jakobpatterson wrote:for a spirit to be able to have a mind to create all the small details in the universe, he must be pretty complex

There was a philosopher from the 19th century named Herbert Spencer. His views are still accepted today within the scientific community. Spencer is known for categorizing what is "knowable". He claimed that everything that is, was or will be can be divided into 5 categories. These 5 categories are:

Time
Force
Action/Method
Space and Dimensions
Matter

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (KJV)

Everything Spencer claimed was already spoken about a long time ago, written in the first line of the Bible.

In the Beginning ----->Time
God ----->Force
Created ----->Action/Method
The Heaven ----->Space and Dimensions
And the Earth ----->Matter

If you notice, it seems very simple yet at the same time very complex. That is not meant to be something to block one's understanding of it though. It is simply part of its truth.

Part of God's character is a mystery to us. If we knew everything about God, it would get pretty boring. As a Christian I believe God's character is revealed best in His Son. If you read what Christ says, you'll come to the same conclusion that many non-Christians have and why many have become believers, God is simple, yet complex.

Seraph wrote:The multiverse isn't claimed to be fine tuned like our universe is and it didn't arise from the big bang like the universe, there really isn't anything that says that it has to have had a beginning. Since it's chaotic and not really fine tuned in any way, it doesn't suggest design like our universe on it's own suggests.

A quick wikipedia search says the following:

Level I: Beyond our cosmological horizon

A generic prediction of chaotic inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions.

See the underlined? Even a super-universe that's responsible for producing a seemingly infinite number of universes at least one of which has an expansion rate greater than zero must itself have a Hubble expansion rate greater than zero and therefore it too must have had a beginning. And if a super-super-universe is postulated, it too must have had a beginning. Do you see where the problem is?

Seraph wrote:What I'm just wondering is what makes the idea of the multiverse being uncaused sound rediculous that can't also be applied to God?

Because a rock cannot form intent (to create).

That's only one form of the multiverse theory though, and it assumes that the multiverse would be just like our universe with the current physical laws of gravity that lead to expansion and whatnot. M-theory proponents say that the different universes all have different physical laws and we just happen to live in the "right" one, thus hubble expansion wouldn't really apply to the multiverse as a whole.

I'm certainly no atheist, but I don't really think that the Cosmological arguement works. I feel like a great deal of people who embrace the first cause arguement as proof of God don't really understand the full extent of the put forth claims of the multiverse theories and make too large of a leap in their conclusion.

Interesting Seraph, without using some sort of cosmological argument, how do you present a good case for God's existence both for your own faith and to help convince nonbelievers? Do you adhere to other popular arguments such as the fine tuning, design, ontological, and moral arguments? Or do you go a completely different route? Just curious.

Seraph wrote:That's only one form of the multiverse theory though, and it assumes that the multiverse would be just like our universe with the current physical laws of gravity that lead to expansion and whatnot. M-theory proponents say that the different universes all have different physical laws and we just happen to live in the "right" one, thus hubble expansion wouldn't really apply to the multiverse as a whole.

It most certainly does apply to ANY type of multi-verse too. ANY universe with ANY laws of physics that has ANY chance of being anthropic (for ANY type of life) MUST be an expanding universe with ANY fractional expansion rate that is greater than zero. That is precisely what the BVG theorem postulates and no one has been able to put any holes in that theorem yet. It is unlikely that they ever will because the alternative is spontaneous, instantaneous creation of eternal life. Try to wrap your head around that one.

Seraph wrote:I'm certainly no atheist, but I don't really think that the Cosmological arguement works. I feel like a great deal of people who embrace the first cause arguement as proof of God don't really understand the full extent of the put forth claims of the multiverse theories and make too large of a leap in their conclusion.

Then you are missing out on some of the most powerful scientific arguments for the existence of God. It would really serve you to look into the BVG theorem more closely. Specifically, look into the probability of low entropy, cosmological constants, and anthropic principles. Two lectures I would highly recommend are The Anthropic Principle and Contemporary Physics and God given by the same person, Robert Spitzer. They are well worth the time spent listening to. Spitzer is a PHD in both astrophysics and philosophy (an absolutely lethal combination of knowledge). He also wrote a book recently, titled "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy". A must read for anyone interested in learning more about physics, metaphysics, and how they are more than ever pointing to God.

Seraph wrote:That's only one form of the multiverse theory though, and it assumes that the multiverse would be just like our universe with the current physical laws of gravity that lead to expansion and whatnot. M-theory proponents say that the different universes all have different physical laws and we just happen to live in the "right" one, thus hubble expansion wouldn't really apply to the multiverse as a whole.

I'm certainly no atheist, but I don't really think that the Cosmological arguement works. I feel like a great deal of people who embrace the first cause arguement as proof of God don't really understand the full extent of the put forth claims of the multiverse theories and make too large of a leap in their conclusion.

Do we have evidence for these other proposed universes? What makes us think physical law wouldn't be the same? Where did the other universes come from? If the chances of nothing creating something are 0 and we have X number of other universes, doesn't this make the whole scenario even more impossible?

I guess I've just never seen a valid case put forward anywhere at any time regarding a multiverse. It feels like science fiction but without all the cool explanations that authors throw into their works. Scientific progress is marked with errors throughout human history because we make grand (and massively false assumptions) - but to do so willingly about something so impossible to really find evidence for... I guess I just don't understand it. I admit I'm in the dark a bit; I just don't see it as a good theory.