Evidence for God from Science

http://thoughteconomics.blogspot.co.uk/ ... ciety.html

A very interesting article.

Interviewed were:
four world experts on religion and science. Fr. José G. Funes (Director of the Vatican Observatory), Prof. Alister McGrath (Director, Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University), Dr. Deborah Haarsma (President of the BioLogos Foundation) and Prof. Justin Barrett (Director, Thrive Centre - Fuller's Graduate School of Psychology). We discuss the fundamental roles of religion and science in society together with their roles in shaping our history, and our future...

Hi Paul

The article is very interesting. However there was quite a bit said about Big Bang. Big Bang does not reconcile the theory of general relativity with quantum mechanics and requires dark energy as an insertion value to explain acceleration. Although BB predicts afterglow, some cosmic shadows are missing. I have never understood how scientists get afterglow pictures that are slightly flattened balls when the Milky Way is meant to be on the outer edge of a ball with no centre. How does the radiation get to us from the other side? A funnel shaped universe also does not fit with afterglow pictures. I wish someone could explain it to me. For me, theories that are the best there is are meaningless.

I have seen better models, such as one based on wave theory, that does not require dark energy and dark matter. The reason why such theories are not taken up is because this one is galactocentric and defies the Copernican Principle.

The science of observation in the here and now is not the same as theoretical science. Indeed even scientists adhere to a philosophy that results in any finding or theory that suggests the earth and mankind are special must be obviously false and should be disregarded.

The fact is earth is very special. It is more than just our goldilocks position, it is about the iron core and protective magnetosphere, plate tectonics, Jupiter as protector and so much more. Mankind is also special because according to evolutionary theory there is no reason why we should not be having intelligent conversations with an evolved lizard or bird. Mankind is the only species that feels the need to make sense of the world and has the intellectual capacity to pass on information to future generations. Why is it so? Luck or God?

Just because someone can offer statistical probabilities around intelligent life elsewhere and point to planets that may sustain life is not observed science to me. It is theoretical and based very much on a philosophy being the Copernican Principle. Reading such articles from such intelligent people, even though they are theist is just confusing to me.

Has science impacted our understanding of God? I say Yes. We look and we observe but many do not want to 'see', with the eye of understanding.

Mazzy wrote:Hi Paul

...
I have seen better models, such as one based on wave theory, that does not require dark energy and dark matter. The reason why such theories are not taken up is because this one is galactocentric and defies the Copernican Principle.

...

Hi Mazzy.
Could you tell me more about the models? How they don't require dark matter and energy? and how they defy Copernican Principle?

ViviStd wrote:

Mazzy wrote:Hi Paul

...
I have seen better models, such as one based on wave theory, that does not require dark energy and dark matter. The reason why such theories are not taken up is because this one is galactocentric and defies the Copernican Principle.

...

Hi Mazzy.
Could you tell me more about the models? How they don't require dark matter and energy? and how they defy Copernican Principle?

Hi there

I have posted this research elsewhere on this forum so sorry for the repetition for those that have read it.

Such a model defies the Copernican Principle in that it makes the Milky way special. In this model the Milky Way is at or near the centre of the universe. IOW it is a galactocentric model. The Copernical Principle asserts nothing about the earth or Milky Way or its postioning can be special.

This model reconciles with the theory of General relativity without the need to use dark matter or dark energy in its algorithims and equations. N fact, as it uses wave theory, and we now light can a can act both as a particle and a wave, this theory, in my view, is more likely to reconcile eventually with quantum mechanics than Big Bang as it stands. This model also incorporates a big bang but its expanding wave originates close to the Milky Way. It makes more sense that suggesting we are on the outer edge of a ball with no centre.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/34/14213.full

For your information, here is a link that shows physicists questioning if dark matters existence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... d-gravity/

Here is some info questioning dark energys existence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rgy-exist/

Here below is a more recent article from 2013 suggesting dark energy theory is incompatable with the latest galactic measurements.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -constant/

I was under the, perhaps incorrect, impression that the basic nuts and bolts of the Copernican model was the idea that the earth moved around the sun. Theories regarding the position of the earth, solar system or galaxy in the universe don't really clash with idea of the earth moving around the sun.

The mathematics might get tough if you want the universe to revolve around the earth's core but if you're happy to feel special that the galaxy we inhabit is sorta near the middle of things in general you should be fine.

Mazzy wrote:Such a model defies the Copernican Principle in that it makes the Milky way special. In this model the Milky Way is at or near the centre of the universe. IOW it is a galactocentric model.

A universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies and we're at the center. Has that coincidence ever raised a red flag in your mind?

And in a galaxy far, far away, an astronomer sees the same expanding universe through her telescopes. Using your "Milky Way"-centric theory, she concludes her galaxy is at the universe's center.

Proinsias wrote:I was under the, perhaps incorrect, impression that the basic nuts and bolts of the Copernican model was the idea that the earth moved around the sun. Theories regarding the position of the earth, solar system or galaxy in the universe don't really clash with idea of the earth moving around the sun.

The mathematics might get tough if you want the universe to revolve around the earth's core but if you're happy to feel special that the galaxy we inhabit is sorta near the middle of things in general you should be fine.

"the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position in the universe.[1] More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe.[2] In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle, with important implications for the philosophy of science."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

I have posted the research on wave theory that puts the milky way at the centre of the universe.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/34/14213.full

If you don't already know there are heaps of problems with Big Bang, one of which is that the physics break down at the singularity and the theory of general relativity do not reconcile with quantum mechanics. The theory above uses wave theory and is ultimately more like to reconcile.

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote:Such a model defies the Copernican Principle in that it makes the Milky way special. In this model the Milky Way is at or near the centre of the universe. IOW it is a galactocentric model.

A universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies and we're at the center. Has that coincidence ever raised a red flag in your mind?

And in a galaxy far, far away, an astronomer sees the same expanding universe through her telescopes. Using your "Milky Way"-centric theory, she concludes her galaxy is at the universe's center.

All galaxies bar Andromeda red shift away from the Milky Way. Has that ever raised a red flag in your mind such as perhaps what is being observed is actually reality? The big "hello' it tells me is that perhaps the earth and mankind are special. However, the obvious may be too hard for the scientific world to deal with.

Does being on the edge of a ball with NO centre while getting slightly flattened but rounded pictures of the afterglows cosmic radiation ever raise any red flags for you?

Mazzy wrote:

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote:Such a model defies the Copernican Principle in that it makes the Milky way special. In this model the Milky Way is at or near the centre of the universe. IOW it is a galactocentric model.

A universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies and we're at the center. Has that coincidence ever raised a red flag in your mind?

And in a galaxy far, far away, an astronomer sees the same expanding universe through her telescopes. Using your "Milky Way"-centric theory, she concludes her galaxy is at the universe's center.

All galaxies bar Andromeda red shift away from the Milky Way. Has that ever raised a red flag in your mind such as perhaps what is being observed is actually reality? The big "hello' it tells me is that perhaps the earth and mankind are special. However, the obvious may be too hard for the scientific world to deal with.

Does being on the edge of a ball with NO centre while getting slightly flattened but rounded pictures of the afterglows cosmic radiation ever raise any red flags for you?

So ... no - the coincidence doesn't raise a red flag for you.

And in a galaxy far, far away, the astronomer's observations of the same red-shifted galaxies tell her that her galaxy is centrally special.

You and our distant astronomer are both making the claim of "my galaxy is the center of the universe." And both of you are sure the other is mistaken.

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote:Such a model defies the Copernican Principle in that it makes the Milky way special. In this model the Milky Way is at or near the centre of the universe. IOW it is a galactocentric model.

A universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies and we're at the center. Has that coincidence ever raised a red flag in your mind?

And in a galaxy far, far away, an astronomer sees the same expanding universe through her telescopes. Using your "Milky Way"-centric theory, she concludes her galaxy is at the universe's center.

All galaxies bar Andromeda red shift away from the Milky Way. Has that ever raised a red flag in your mind such as perhaps what is being observed is actually reality? The big "hello' it tells me is that perhaps the earth and mankind are special. However, the obvious may be too hard for the scientific world to deal with.

Does being on the edge of a ball with NO centre while getting slightly flattened but rounded pictures of the afterglows cosmic radiation ever raise any red flags for you?

So ... no - the coincidence doesn't raise a red flag for you.

And in a galaxy far, far away, the astronomer's observations of the same red-shifted galaxies tell her that her galaxy is centrally special.

You and our distant astronomer are both making the claim of "my galaxy is the center of the universe." And both of you are sure the other is mistaken.

I wish I knew what you were on about. This business about red flags is not science, it is attitude.

The only red flag you are raising with me is that you also believe earth and mankind are not special and can't possibly be special. Good for you! Let me know when SETI hears some noise or you see some aliens or when some other species starts to make sense of the universe.

The fact is earth is very special. It is more than just our goldilocks position, it is about the iron core and protective magnetosphere, plate tectonics, Jupiter as protector and so much more. Mankind is also special because according to evolutionary theory there is no reason why we should not be having intelligent conversations with an evolved lizard or bird. Mankind is the only species that feels the need to make sense of the world and has the intellectual capacity to pass on information to future generations. Why is it so? Luck or God?

I read (from a reputable source as I remember) quit a while ago that there are a trillion factors that let life as we know it exist on Earth. I haven't been able to find it again, but I'll admit i haven't tried too hard. And if there are even 1 trillion planets similar to Earth, they still need the 1 trillion factors letting life like ours exist. This alone is reason enough for me to highly reasonably doubt other intelligent life exists elsewhere. Do you know of this Mazzy? Seems like you might and I'd like to find it again.

Mallz wrote:

The fact is earth is very special. It is more than just our goldilocks position, it is about the iron core and protective magnetosphere, plate tectonics, Jupiter as protector and so much more. Mankind is also special because according to evolutionary theory there is no reason why we should not be having intelligent conversations with an evolved lizard or bird. Mankind is the only species that feels the need to make sense of the world and has the intellectual capacity to pass on information to future generations. Why is it so? Luck or God?

I read (from a reputable source as I remember) quit a while ago that there are a trillion factors that let life as we know it exist on Earth. I haven't been able to find it again, but I'll admit i haven't tried too hard. And if there are even 1 trillion planets similar to Earth, they still need the 1 trillion factors letting life like ours exist. This alone is reason enough for me to highly reasonably doubt other intelligent life exists elsewhere. Do you know of this Mazzy? Seems like you might and I'd like to find it again.

I found this link you may be interested in.

There is much more to the earth being special and having a life form on it that can make sense of the world, than just being in a goldilocks zone such as parent star distance from centre of galaxy, parent star distance from closest spiral arm, z-axis range of star's orbit, parent star age, parent star metallicity, surface gravity, inclination of orbit, magnetic field, ozone quantity in atmosphere, seismic activity, rate of decline in tectonic activity, gravitational interaction with a moon, Jupiter distance and mass, major planet orbital eccentricities, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric transparency, iron core, and too many more to list.

We have to also remember that there is no evolutionary reason, if one accepts TOE, why some other species did not ‘evolve’ towards having the capacity to make sense of the world and want to explore the universe eg lizard or bird men.


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html

Didn't even search the homesite

Not what I read a 'while' ago, but good! With resources to explore when I want to refreshen my knowledge in depth. Thanks!

Mazzy wrote:I wish I knew what you were on about.

I'm not surprised.

As far as our telescopes can see, galaxies are receding with velocities proportional to their distance from us. So an astronomer on a distant galaxy sees the same velocity/distance galaxy recession pattern that we see.

And yet you are the one making the claim that the Milky Way is at the privileged center of the universe. You do know that wanting the Milky Way to be at the center of the universe is not evidence for that, yes?

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote:I wish I knew what you were on about.

I'm not surprised.

As far as our telescopes can see, galaxies are receding with velocities proportional to their distance from us. So an astronomer on a distant galaxy sees the same velocity/distance galaxy recession pattern that we see.

And yet you are the one making the claim that the Milky Way is at the privileged center of the universe. You do know that wanting the Milky Way to be at the center of the universe is not evidence for that, yes?

I have posted empirical research to back up a galactocentric universe. I have also offered sound reasoning in afterglow pictures making no sense of a galaxy meant to be on the outer edge of a ball.

The best you appear to have to offer is flag waving and attitude. Why don't you read my links and offer a sensible reply instead of flag waving?

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/34/14213.full