Evidence for God from Science

Last night this argument for the supernatural (a step below proof of God in my eyes) formed in my head. Usually I forget these things but this time I actually wrote it down. I'm going to try to use this to persuade some atheists I know that there is a supernatural domain and that the possibility of God is not against science.

I want you guys to pick this thing apart and tell me what's wrong with it.

Statement one: The Universe Exists

Proof: Your senses are taking in information about the universe right at this moment. That nature of reality does not matter, only that it exists. If it is just your mind building an illusion, it still exists, in your mind. Therefore the universe exists because you are receiving information from your body about it.

Statement two: The Universe is Expanding

Proof:In the early 1900s Albert Einstein formulated several equations that contributed immensely to the field of physics and cosmology. One equation was very devastating to Einstein because it implicated a universe that expands. Einstein believed in a static, eternal universe. To get around this issue he introduced his cosmological constant. However, Edwin Hubble proved by studying the red shift of stars that the universe was indeed expanding.

Statement two implications: There was a point in time when all matter, space, and energy was concentrated in one point. If the universe is expanding as time goes forward, turning back the clock would show the universe contracting to a point. If the universe were to exist before this point, it would have to have a provision for negative space, which it doesn't.

Therefore we can say...

Statement 3: The universe had an origin. It had a beginning, time 0.

Proof : Statement 2.

Statement 4: The universe had a beginning, therefore it was started, therefore there was a cause which had the effect of the universe being formed.

Proof: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. If a pot of water is boiling, it is because the stove is on. It is on because someone turned it on, they turned it on because they wanted tea and so on and so forth. If the universe also had a beginning, it had a cause with the end result being the universe.

Statement 5: If the universe was created, it must exist in something greater than itself that is eternal and static. This domain must be large enough to encompass the universe and also the thing that caused the universe.

The thing that caused the universe must be eternal and unchanging as well.

Proof: If the universe was created, there must be something there before it to be able to house the creation. This domain must be greater than the universe and also eternal. On the other hand, it may be created like the universe but must be contained within something greater than itself that is eternal. Using Occam's razor we opt for the simpler, single eternal realm.

Conclusion: There is a realm greater than the universe, that houses the universe and the thing that caused the universe. This realm is the supernatural, the universe being natural and the realm being greater than it.

If it is just your mind building an illusion, it still exists, in your mind. Therefore the universe exists because you are receiving information from your body about it.

And the fact that many people tend to agree with you also helps out.

Statement two: The Universe is Expanding

I've heard that an idea is that the universe keeps on exploding, expanding, and contradacting, over and over again...the only problem, though....is that nothing is going to make a ball of everything explode-the force of gravity is monstrous-after an eternity of existing, it will have reached entropy-and, of course, you don't get galaxies, planets, stars, solar systems, etc, from a big explosion....all you'd get is a universe full of randomly oriented matter (assuming we ignore gravity...). Good argument, of course-but you'll hear excuses....poor ones, but excuses nonetheless.

Nice arguments. Maybe I'm biased, I don't know.

Back when I used to think about all this stuff I had an idea that would explain the contraction and expansion of a universe. What if we are just on the other side of a very large black hole, an alternate universe is being destroyed as ours is created? I'm not positing that as an actual fact but it is an interesting idea and no more radical than some scientific theories I've seen.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

If it is just your mind building an illusion, it still exists, in your mind. Therefore the universe exists because you are receiving information from your body about it.

And the fact that many people tend to agree with you also helps out.

Statement two: The Universe is Expanding

I've heard that an idea is that the universe keeps on exploding, expanding, and contradacting, over and over again...the only problem, though....is that nothing is going to make a ball of everything explode-the force of gravity is monstrous-after an eternity of existing, it will have reached entropy-and, of course, you don't get galaxies, planets, stars, solar systems, etc, from a big explosion....all you'd get is a universe full of randomly oriented matter (assuming we ignore gravity...). Good argument, of course-but you'll hear excuses....poor ones, but excuses nonetheless.

Nice arguments. Maybe I'm biased, I don't know.

Actually, it is mathematically possible for anything to happen given enough time. However it's very unlikely, something in the area of 1 in 10^-37 for all the gas released from opening a can of soda crowding up into it again. The universe isn't even that old.

However if this were true about the universe it can't be proven, our observational data would be innacurate and incomplete for the duration of our existence. Therefore it is not provable so we discard that theory because it cannot be proven or disproven. Then there's Occam's razor which eliminates it for being needlessly complex. The universe having a beginning is the theory that makes the most sense based on observational evidence.

If an atheist were to accept the argument you brought up, they'd be on the level of blind faith.

j316 wrote:Back when I used to think about all this stuff I had an idea that would explain the contraction and expansion of a universe. What if we are just on the other side of a very large black hole, an alternate universe is being destroyed as ours is created? I'm not positing that as an actual fact but it is an interesting idea and no more radical than some scientific theories I've seen.

There is no 'opposite-end' of a blackhole. A blackhole is just a superdense concentration of matter at a single infinitely small point of space. The most probable properties of this area (other than the breaking down of equations in such extreme conditions) is that it's a finite area of space, it's just distorted into an infinitely deep depression of space.

Furthermore your theory needs an alternate universe to operate, which cannot be proved or refuted. It's also needlessly complicated and there isn't enough data on black holes to support this idea.

Would you please explain this concrete point further. I think I don't quite understand it:

If the universe were to exist before this point, it would have to have a provision for negative space, which it doesn't.

Anyway, your argument seems to represent a sophisticated, science-tinged version of Thomas Aquinas' 'Quinque Viae', that were refuted long ago by the likes of John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell. Good thinking, though; I would like to catch the kinda dim detail mentioned above.

atheist wrote:Would you please explain this concrete point further. I think I don't quite understand it:

If the universe were to exist before this point, it would have to have a provision for negative space, which it doesn't.

Anyway, your argument seems to represent a sophisticated, science-tinged version of Thomas Aquinas' 'Quinque Viae', that were refuted long ago by the likes of John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell. Good thinking, though; I would like to catch the kinda dim detail mentioned above.

If you're going to say this was refuted, at least post how. Remarks without any substance hardly do anything except annoy (though I'm not annoyed, other people do get annoyed and 'heated discussions' erupt).

Ok, let's start with "The universe is expanding." Which is proved.

Graphical representation of the quote you mentioned:



Since the universe has always been expanding, there was one point when it was contained into a single dimensionless point, similar to a singularity. If the universe was eternal, this moment of time would have had moments of time *before* it and so the universe would have expanded into a point, which has no dimensions. This makes no sense does it? You can't get smaller than what the universe was at exactly T = 0. Negative dimensions aren't possible.

Dan, I've also read that the red shift could be caused by a galaxy moving parallel to ours....but, then you'd have to ask, if that is right, how in the world (oops, a pun) has managed to be flying through space after the Big Dud in parallel lines?

Actually, it is mathematically possible for anything to happen given enough time. However it's very unlikely, something in the area of 1 in 10^-37 for all the gas released from opening a can of soda crowding up into it again. The universe isn't even that old.

Except laws cannot be broken, correct? More order will never be created from natural events, matter will never be created, and life will never be created from non-life (law of biogenesis, my favorite and one of the most obvious).

Laws are not infallable kmart. Gravity used to be a law until we realised there is no such thing as the force of gravity.

Mastermind wrote:Laws are not infallable kmart. Gravity used to be a law until we realised there is no such thing as the force of gravity.

I know, we thought them up, and we are fallible, so what we cook up could be as well. But the biogenesis and 2nd law seem less likely to be wrong. especially biogenesis...information requires a mental source

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Dan, I've also read that the red shift could be caused by a galaxy moving parallel to ours....but, then you'd have to ask, if that is right, how in the world (oops, a pun) has managed to be flying through space after the Big Dud in parallel lines?

Actually, it is mathematically possible for anything to happen given enough time. However it's very unlikely, something in the area of 1 in 10^-37 for all the gas released from opening a can of soda crowding up into it again. The universe isn't even that old.

Except laws cannot be broken, correct? More order will never be created from natural events, matter will never be created, and life will never be created from non-life (law of biogenesis, my favorite and one of the most obvious).

The law holds true simply because it's impossible to force it to be wrong. Showing it is wrong would require quadrillions of years however it has been mathematically proven that it's possible.

Furthermore, I just pointed out the very miniscule chance of order appearing out of nowhere to make everything clear. The chance of anything more complex than a soda developing randomly is smaller than the possibility of you exploding into ten trillion particles and then reforming somewhere on Venus perfectly fine in less than a second, and then miraculously staying alive for more than a few seconds. The contrast between the possibilities is incredibly huge.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Mastermind wrote:Laws are not infallable kmart. Gravity used to be a law until we realised there is no such thing as the force of gravity.

I know, we thought them up, and we are fallible, so what we cook up could be as well. But the biogenesis and 2nd law seem less likely to be wrong. especially biogenesis...information requires a mental source

Your interpretation of the second law is full of errors though. Say you have two points of energy. As energy expands from them, some of the energy coming from two different directions will eventually meet and focus into a point before it starts expanding again. This would be a basic example of why you can't say order doesn't come out of chaos. The second law of thermodynamics really has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

If you're going to say this was refuted, at least post how.

Ups... So sorry, Dan. I assumed you were familiar with both sides of the theory.

The refutation of the Quinque Viae is abundant and has a long tradition. Since Hume deconstructed the concept of 'cause' in XVIII century, many has rebuked Thomas Aquinas. The most clear argument (not by chance the only one) was probably Bertrand Russell's:

"If everything must have a cause then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument"

Though this words are his, the argument is richer and deeper. If you are interested, I highly recommend at least his comments on Thomas Aquinas in "The History Of Western Philosophy", which I don't have here to transcribe.

atheist wrote:

If you're going to say this was refuted, at least post how.

Ups... So sorry, Dan. I assumed you were familiar with both sides of the theory.

The refutation of the Quinque Viae is abundant and has a long tradition. Since Hume deconstructed the concept of 'cause' in XVIII century, many has rebuked Thomas Aquinas. The most clear argument (not by chance the only one) was probably Bertrand Russell's:

"If everything must have a cause then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument"

Though this words are his, the argument is richer and deeper. If you are interested, I highly recommend at least his comments on Thomas Aquinas in "The History Of Western Philosophy", which I don't have here to transcribe.

He calls that a rebuttal? God IS the first cause. That's part of the Christian belief. Since something cannot come out of nothing, then something must have always been here. That something fits in perfectly with God's statement that "He has always been".

atheist wrote:

If you're going to say this was refuted, at least post how.

Ups... So sorry, Dan. I assumed you were familiar with both sides of the theory.

The refutation of the Quinque Viae is abundant and has a long tradition. Since Hume deconstructed the concept of 'cause' in XVIII century, many has rebuked Thomas Aquinas. The most clear argument (not by chance the only one) was probably Bertrand Russell's:

"If everything must have a cause then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument"

Though this words are his, the argument is richer and deeper. If you are interested, I highly recommend at least his comments on Thomas Aquinas in "The History Of Western Philosophy", which I don't have here to transcribe.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause. We've determined that there is a domain beyond our universe (the supernatural) that is uncreated and therefore uncaused. Then we reason that the first cause of everything must not have a cause because then it would not be the first cause. I did not say God was the first cause (yet at least ), I'm just setting up the premise that there is an uncreated supernatural realm and the uncreated first cause of everything.

I didnt know about the refutation of Quinque Viae because I've only skimmed it (and couldn't understand it because the translation style was hard) and never got through the entire thing. This just popped into my head one late night.