Evidence for God from Science

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/06/ ... z1yr34RVqZ



Sounds like Lawrence Krauss stuff to me. :/

DRDS wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/06/ ... z1yr34RVqZ



Sounds like Lawrence Krauss stuff to me. :/

Yea that's probably Lawrence "I got destroyed by William lane craig" krauss

Maybe someone should get him started on William con Henry's the mental universe, and how the mind comes before the material.

This is a typical case of a physicist that puts his atheism before his science.

Did any of you read the article till the end?

The guy clearly says that science can't prove/disprove God and even if the Universe was created without God's intervention that still doesn't explain how the law of physics came into place.

He clearly admits that he doesn't have an answer for that and he doesn't say anything about this discovery being something that will provide answers for people who believe in God.

What's there to refute?

The biggest issue is always gonna be the science and physics is adamant that, for everything there MUST be a cause.
That is one of the cornerstones of science.
IF the big bang happened ( and science is almost 100% sure it did) then SOMETHING caused it and that something was outside the laws of the universe that we know ( since those laws came to be FROM the universe we live in).
There is no way around the fact that there must have been a "first cause" and that first cause was NOT subject to the Laws of the universe as we knwo thme because those laws did NOT exist yet.
Time as we know it, did not exist yet.

Science will probably NEVER have the answer because science can only comment on what we can observe Here and Now and can only speculate on everything else.

The biggest issue is always gonna be the science and physics is adamant that, for everything there MUST be a cause.

That is true to a certain point.

One thing you have to understand is that the cause-effect relationship is also time dependant. Effect is the future of a cause explained in very simple terms. If you take time out of the equation there the relationship cause-effect could be reversed (effect-cause) or non-existent at all.

Just pick any time paradox you want and you will see what I mean by effect-cause reversal.

Needless to say that in a timeless place/situation there is not cause-effect at all.

Unfortunately at the moment being, we are dependant on time. It's kind of hard to imagine a timeless scenario.

BryanH wrote:

The biggest issue is always gonna be the science and physics is adamant that, for everything there MUST be a cause.

That is true to a certain point.

One thing you have to understand is that the cause-effect relationship is also time dependant. Effect is the future of a cause explained in very simple terms. If you take time out of the equation there the relationship cause-effect could be reversed (effect-cause) or non-existent at all.

Just pick any time paradox you want and you will see what I mean by effect-cause reversal.

Needless to say that in a timeless place/situation there is not cause-effect at all.

Unfortunately at the moment being, we are dependant on time. It's kind of hard to imagine a timeless scenario.

Indeed.
Yet, for anything to have a beginning, including time, there means that, at some point, it never existed.
If something never existed, it had to have been "created" or "caused".
Sure, theoretical physics can postulate that something that was always there, can become something more/different for no other reason than IT CAN, but that is not constant with the laws of physics of THIS universe as we KNOW it.

PaulSacramento wrote:

BryanH wrote:

The biggest issue is always gonna be the science and physics is adamant that, for everything there MUST be a cause.

That is true to a certain point.

One thing you have to understand is that the cause-effect relationship is also time dependant. Effect is the future of a cause explained in very simple terms. If you take time out of the equation there the relationship cause-effect could be reversed (effect-cause) or non-existent at all.

Just pick any time paradox you want and you will see what I mean by effect-cause reversal.

Needless to say that in a timeless place/situation there is not cause-effect at all.

Unfortunately at the moment being, we are dependant on time. It's kind of hard to imagine a timeless scenario.

Indeed.
Yet, for anything to have a beginning, including time, there means that, at some point, it never existed.
If something never existed, it had to have been "created" or "caused".
Sure, theoretical physics can postulate that something that was always there, can become something more/different for no other reason than IT CAN, but that is not constant with the laws of physics of THIS universe as we KNOW it.

When you're speaking of time outside of time, like that, and speak of the creation of time, it kinda sounds nonsensical. That statement alone presupposes a time outside of time for which our current time and space is dependent, and I don't know if that's the case (although, it maybe makes sense if you assume the heavenly, eternal realm where god 'is'). I'm not sure if we can understand what caused time to come into being or if that statement even makes sense. Causality is something that only holds within time. I'm not sure anything had to cause it at all. I don't really have any way of knowing.

Time is relative.
We can ONLY think in terms of TIME based on how we experience it in THIS universe.
There is no reason to believe that things are the same in a different universe or dimension.

BryanH wrote:One thing you have to understand is that the cause-effect relationship is also time dependant. Effect is the future of a cause explained in very simple terms. If you take time out of the equation there the relationship cause-effect could be reversed (effect-cause) or non-existent at all. ... Unfortunately at the moment being, we are dependant on time. It's kind of hard to imagine a timeless scenario.

Excellent points.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Yet, for anything to have a beginning, including time, there means that, at some point {in time, which doesn't exist - (added)}, it never existed.

When you're speaking of time outside of time, like that, and speak of the creation of time, it kinda sounds nonsensical. That statement alone presupposes a time outside of time for which our current time and space is dependent ... Causality is something that only holds within time. I'm not sure anything had to cause it at all. I don't really have any way of knowing.

More excellent points.

What a joy to see two such perceptive posts. This is certainly a difficult topic to think about. The hardest part is realizing there even is a problem as illustrated above.

Colbert tears him apart and shows him much of a joke his claims really are

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbe ... rect=true


Quite funny. Especially the last word Colbert gets in

Swimmy wrote:Colbert tears him apart and shows him much of a joke his claims really are

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbe ... rect=true


Quite funny. Especially the last word Colbert gets in

I saw that when it first aired, and I thought Colbert did pretty well too. No one can win an argument with a good comedian. I've read a lot of philosophers on Krauss, and for the most part they are not happy with the way he deals with more philosophical issues, especially the subject of nothing and his less than acceptable definition of it (which Colbert points out).

This article utilizes one of the most common news propaganda techniques of our age. At the end, it does toss in the very true statement that it is still unexplained as to why we have laws of physics in the first place. But, the vast majority of the article from the title to the last paragraph is framed in terms of "we don't need God to explain the Universe." The intent is that most people will only see the title or read most of the article and may miss the end entirely. Or, they have already formulated an opinion by the time they reach the end.

It's more or less the tried and true tactic of making a long argument, then tossing in a counter-argument at the end but not exploring that counter-argument in any meaningful detail so that it looks like a cop out or like it's weak.

But it's Fox news - aren't they 'fair and balanced' or something?

"Nothing is unstable" lol. "Empty space weighs something" lolol. "There are three types of nothing" lolololol "empty space will burp out particles".

"If there is no thing called God then something can come from him right?" Colbert kills me.

sandy_mcd wrote:But it's Fox news - aren't they 'fair and balanced' or something?

Fox News is republishing an article from Space.com.