Evidence for God from Science

Hi everyone.

A couple of questions I would like to ask regarding the topic title. It is my understanding that String Theory and The Theory of Everything is an alternative to a intelligent creator or God. Strings I believe (and please correct me if I am wrong) are the smallest particles in existance that vibrate throughout 10 dimensions. It is believed that a collision with some strings in this realm created the four dimensional universe that we live in now. This realm where the strings exist is essentially outside of time so therefore certainly has one of the prerequisites for being a creator of a finite universe - essentially - these strings are the God that we are looking for. Is this theory correct? How substantial is it?

As with the Theory of everything, how does this also determine that the universe can get along fine with out a creator because one theory explains it all?

Hope you guys can help me with this?

Silvertusk.

String theory sounds weird, but how can these strings be in time, and out of time, at the same *pun* time? I don't know, this is probably a theory that is just trying to make excuses (the part you mentioned at least)

But with the theory of Everything, it's funny, but if there is actually just one thing that determines everything (strength of gravity and other forces, etc...) then that doesn't alleviate the problem of requiring a designer, because instead of you being able to create a universe capable of having life by changing a multitude of settings....you only have one setting you can change, which changes a multitude of settings. It'd be like finding out that all the puppets on the stage are not controlled by dozens of strings and puppeteers...but only one big string (connected to the smaller strings) and one guy...it doesn't make you think "oh, that makes everything simpler"...instead you're left with your lower jaw hitting the floor as you think "how can he do that?" (I am thinking of the right theory here right? It seems like this name could stand for many things)

Silvertusk wrote:Hi everyone.

A couple of questions I would like to ask regarding the topic title. It is my understanding that String Theory and The Theory of Everything is an alternative to a intelligent creator or God. Strings I believe (and please correct me if I am wrong) are the smallest particles in existance that vibrate throughout 10 dimensions. It is believed that a collision with some strings in this realm created the four dimensional universe that we live in now. This realm where the strings exist is essentially outside of time so therefore certainly has one of the prerequisites for being a creator of a finite universe - essentially - these strings are the God that we are looking for. Is this theory correct? How substantial is it?

Actually I believe it is simply that our universe began with 10 (or 11 in M-Theory) space-time dimensions, and all the physical forces are able to be unitable under these dimensions. Then almost immediately, 10^-43 seconds after their beginning, the ten split into six static dimensions and four expanding dimensions (the ones we experience). This is my understanding from reading Hugh Ross, and various pages across the web, and I'd really recommend Ross' book The Creator and the Cosmos.

Now within these many dimensions there is no need to posit a breakdown in the physical laws that govern our universe. Therefore the space-time theorum which is based upon our universe containing mass and general relativity being correct holds true, and this theorum predicts our universe having a beginning point. Thus, if the implication of a beginning point still remains, and infact it seems more so if a string theory is correct. So this naturally begs the question, if our universe hasn't always existed but came into existence, what or who caused our universe to come into existence?

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:Hi everyone.

A couple of questions I would like to ask regarding the topic title. It is my understanding that String Theory and The Theory of Everything is an alternative to a intelligent creator or God. Strings I believe (and please correct me if I am wrong) are the smallest particles in existance that vibrate throughout 10 dimensions. It is believed that a collision with some strings in this realm created the four dimensional universe that we live in now. This realm where the strings exist is essentially outside of time so therefore certainly has one of the prerequisites for being a creator of a finite universe - essentially - these strings are the God that we are looking for. Is this theory correct? How substantial is it?

Actually I believe it is simply that our universe began with 10 (or 11 in M-Theory) space-time dimensions, and all the physical forces are able to be unitable under these dimensions. Then almost immediately, 10^-43 seconds after their beginning, the ten split into six static dimensions and four expanding dimensions (the ones we experience). This is my understanding from reading Hugh Ross, and various pages across the web, and I'd really recommend Ross' book The Creator and the Cosmos.

Now within these many dimensions there is no need to posit a breakdown in the physical laws that govern our universe. Therefore the space-time theorum which is based upon our universe containing mass and general relativity being correct holds true, and this theorum predicts our universe having a beginning point. Thus, if the implication of a beginning point still remains, and infact it seems more so if a string theory is correct. So this naturally begs the question, if our universe hasn't always existed but came into existence, what or who caused our universe to come into existence?

Kurieuo.

Thankyou for your response.

I think most of science is in agreement that the universe had a beginning and that something outside of our dimension of time (i.e. something in the eternal) created it. Are you saying that the Strings themselves do not exist outside of time, in the "eternal" but that the fourth dimension binds all other dimensions and then something outside of that still (God for example) created these dimensions and these strings?

I ask this because I was under the impression that string theory got around this problem by impling that the strings themselves were outside of time therefore fullfilling the need for an eternal creator? Because otherwise you are right - there is still a need for an answer to what created these strings.

Thanks for that book reccomendation - I will look it up as I realise that my knowledge in this area is limited.

Cheers

Silvertusk

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:String theory sounds weird, but how can these strings be in time, and out of time, at the same *pun* time? I don't know, this is probably a theory that is just trying to make excuses (the part you mentioned at least)

But with the theory of Everything, it's funny, but if there is actually just one thing that determines everything (strength of gravity and other forces, etc...) then that doesn't alleviate the problem of requiring a designer, because instead of you being able to create a universe capable of having life by changing a multitude of settings....you only have one setting you can change, which changes a multitude of settings. It'd be like finding out that all the puppets on the stage are not controlled by dozens of strings and puppeteers...but only one big string (connected to the smaller strings) and one guy...it doesn't make you think "oh, that makes everything simpler"...instead you're left with your lower jaw hitting the floor as you think "how can he do that?" (I am thinking of the right theory here right? It seems like this name could stand for many things)

Thankyou

Yes - I agree with you which is why I am confused as to way some athiest scientists believe this theory does away with the need for a creator. I do not understand their thinking in this regards. Bringing more order into a universe surely points to a creator.

Does anyone here understand what their angle on this one might be?

God bless

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote: Thankyou

Yes - I agree with you which is why I am confused as to way some athiest scientists believe this theory does away with the need for a creator. I do not understand their thinking in this regards. Bringing more order into a universe surely points to a creator.

Does anyone here understand what their angle on this one might be?

God bless

Silvertusk.

Actually, it's not so much that it does away with the need for a creator but that it allows for the possibility of an endless cycle. Consequently, there was no beginning, and there will be no end. Keep in mind also that string theory (most of it anyway) is just a theory, and not provable by any standard methods of physics thus far. Here's an overview of the assumptions (also check out Steinhardt's website which is linked from the article):

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506 ... iverse.htm

Isn't an infinite past impossible? 1) Infinity cannot actually exist outside the mind of a mathmetician, and 2) if we had an infinite past, how do we get to the present?

I think that one option which should be considered is that the objects ("Strings") posited by String Theory probably do not really exist. I think the whole notion of existing one-dimensional objects (not to mention ten dimensions) is so counterintuitive that it is absurd. Any success which such theories has is not so much because the objects they discuss are real as because real objects behave in ways that are hard to capture using traditional theories. Set theory is another example. It successfully employs the concept of infinite sets which has real world applicability in computer science and mathematics, but as William Lane Craig has persuasively argued, that does not mean that there really are infinite sets in the real world.

Kievas wrote:Actually, it's not so much that it does away with the need for a creator but that it allows for the possibility of an endless cycle.

I'd disagree string theory allows the possibility for an endless cycle, and the article linked to does not say any such thing (if that is why you referenced it). Infact, string theory is based on ten dimensions being apart of our universe, and therefore it is quite logically impossible for such to have caused our universe. It is on par to saying the universe caused itself, which it entirely illogical for something can't come from nothing. If nothing exists, then nothing will continue to exist.

Now to address something specifically within the article, it says:

The new theory provides possible answers to several longstanding problems with the big bang model, which has dominated the field of cosmology for decades. It addresses, for example, the nagging question of what might have triggered or come "before" the beginning of time.

Now I'm at a loss as to why this is a "nagging question" since it has been answered by certain philosophers (scientists should perhaps stick to their experiments huh? ). To state the problem another way, the author is basically saying it is absurd to say that time existed before time (and it is!). Yet the error does not lie with the person who believes something existed before time, it lies with the person who believes time existed before time.

To reason time existed before time is to postulate a backward causation—the first event causes time to exist not only with the first event but also before it. Now on a tensed theory of time, such retro-causation is metaphysically impossible for it amounts to something being caused by nothing. To explain further, upon the first effect (i.e., our universe coming into existence) the retro-cause (i.e., times causing "time" to exist before itself) in no sense existed. Apart from backward causation, there is nothing that appears to produce a time prior to times creation. Given that time began to exist (as science suggests), it is nothing but an illusion to picture a time before time. It is more appropriate to picture a state of timelessness without our universe, and temporality subsequent to its coming into existence.

Kurieuo.

Silvertusk wrote:Bringing more order into a universe surely points to a creator

Does the creator have order? How did the creator come to exist?

According to Ilya Prigogine, ordered structures can be formed in a system which is far from equilibrium (more info). He got a Nobel Prize for his contributions in this area. Our universe started with a state (the Big Bang) which is extremely far from equilibrium, allowing formation of ordered structures such as galaxies, stars, planets and the life on earth. The question is: how could our universe suddenly in such a far-from-equilibrium state?

According to the string theory, our universe (with three dimensions of space) is embedded in the bulk universe which has 10 (or 9) dimensions of space. My idea is that an invisible spirit world first evolved slowly from an empty space in the bulk universe (more info), the intelligent life (God) in this spirit world then created our universe.

Kurieuo wrote:
I'd disagree string theory allows the possibility for an endless cycle, and the article linked to does not say any such thing (if that is why you referenced it).

Actually, you're right. String theory itself does not say that. It's an extension of M-theory that explains the cyclic nature of the universe from the oscillation of two M-branes. However, M-theory would not exist without string theory.

To quote from the article:

The cyclic universe theory represents a combination of standard physical concepts and ideas from the emerging fields of string theory and M-theory, which are ambitious efforts to develop a unified theory of all physical forces and particles. Although these theories are rooted in complex mathematics, they offer a compelling graphic picture of the cyclic universe theory.

If you're interested, read some of Steinhardt's work...he's a fascinating guy. I want to repeat, again, that all of this is still nothing more than theory, even though it is very elegant mathematically (at least, to me). What's interesting to me is that string theory and quantum mechanics only seems to reinforce the majesty and power of God's creation.

In my opinion though, there are multiple problems with all "infinite" oscillation views, although the one you point to does seem slightly different, but in many ways still the same. For example, they generally face problems from entropy which decreases over time within the universe. One has to entirely do away with the second law in order to posit that there wouldn't be less and less energy with every bounce (whether the bounce is the universe itself after a contraction, or multiple other universes spawned by a universe onces it wears out). This has two effects upon respawning universe theories:

The first is that with every contraction (or spawning of a new universe), the universe would loose mechanical energy. To use an analogy I read involving a rubber band, when a rubber band is new its elasticity and energy potential is greatest. After much use, it looses much of its elasticity and is able to be stretched further and further out. In the same way, the law of thermodynamics would compel the expansion of the universe to increase from cycle to cycle due to its loss of energy for contraction. As each cycle increases, the universe might be able to look forward to an infinitely long future, but it would still only have a finite past (since as you go back through every bounce, the expansion of the universes would get smaller and smaller before eventually reaching a "singularity" anyway).

Another problem from entropy also restricts even how many bounces the universe could possibly produce. Another analogy I've read is of a rubber ball being dropped onto a hard and smooth floor. Each bounce will never get to the same height as its previous bounce, but rather the bounce will become smaller and smaller as energy for a bounce is lost. Eventually the bounced will stop. Now the factor which determines how many bounces a ball has is the amount of mechanical efficiency it has. For example, a hard rubber ball may bounce a dozen times, which has a higher mechanical effiency than a soft foam ball which may only bounce twice when dropped from the same height. Yet how much mechanical energy does our universe have? It has been pointed out that in several papers published in Nature that even if the universe contained enough mass to halt its expansion, any ultimate collapse would end in a thud, not a bounce (see Guth, Alan H. and Sher, Marc. "The Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe," in Nature, 302. (1983), pp.505-506; Bludman, Sidney A. "Thermodynamics and the End of a closed Universe," in Nature, 308. (1984), pp.319-322). Applying this idea to the model you've referenced, with each new set of universes spawned, more and more mechanical energy to spawn future universes would be used up. And so, there would still only be enough mechanical energy for a finite amount of universes.

There have been many attempts made to escape a singular beginning of the universe. I personally believe there are certain motivations behind theories like Steinhardt and Turok's, which usually introduces a scalar field working on some unknown physics that acts as a third factor to gravity and the universe's self-stretching property. Yet, most justify invoking their new unsupported theory by pointing to an apparent problem within the broadly accepted inflationary model. This problem is usually the same old one as was answered in my previous post, which to quote a similar article to yours: "In particular, questions about what happened "before" the Big Bang cannot really be asked because there is supposed to have been "no before" - since there was no time." (http://www.marxist.com/scienceandtech/big_bang.html) The only people that this problem seems to be an issue for, are materialists who have a distaste for God. This becomes apparent in the same article where it is written: "In the most widely accepted cosmological model, called the inflationary model, the universe was born in an instantaneous creation of matter and energy. It is the modern equivalent of the old religious dogma of the creation of the world from nothing." Other than this distaste for religion and "apparent" problem, the article does to its credit admit that there is no contradictory data surrounding the inflationary model by citing the Harvard University astrophysicist Robert P. Kirshner, "The inflation idea has been tremendously influential... No observation's been found that proves it wrong."

One must ask the question why many are so motivated to look for alternative explanations and are so willing to discard such a well evidenced theory in place of one that usually introduces unknown physics to alter physics we do not know, cannot measure nor understand. While speculation and abstract thinking is certainly good, I think it becomes obvious what drives many to look for infinite universe alternatives, especially when a beginning to the universe is seen as "the modern equivalent" of "old religious dogma."

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:In my opinion though, there are multiple problems with all "infinite" oscillation views, although the one you point to does seem slightly different, but in many ways still the same. For example, they generally face problems from entropy which decreases over time within the universe. One has to entirely do away with the second law in order to posit that there wouldn't be less and less energy with every bounce (whether the bounce is the universe itself after a contraction, or multiple other universes spawned by a universe onces it wears out). This has two effects upon respawning universe theories:

The first is that with every contraction (or spawning of a new universe), the universe would loose mechanical energy. To use an analogy I read involving a rubber band, when a rubber band is new its elasticity and energy potential is greatest. After much use, it looses much of its elasticity and is able to be stretched further and further out. In the same way, the law of thermodynamics would compel the expansion of the universe to increase from cycle to cycle due to its loss of energy for contraction. As each cycle increases, the universe might be able to look forward to an infinitely long future, but it would still only have a finite past (since as you go back through every bounce, the expansion of the universes would get smaller and smaller before eventually reaching a "singularity" anyway).

Another problem from entropy also restricts even how many bounces the universe could possibly produce. Another analogy I've read is of a rubber ball being dropped onto a hard and smooth floor. Each bounce will never get to the same height as its previous bounce, but rather the bounce will become smaller and smaller as energy for a bounce is lost. Eventually the bounced will stop. Now the factor which determines how many bounces a ball has is the amount of mechanical efficiency it has. For example, a hard rubber ball may bounce a dozen times, which has a higher mechanical effiency than a soft foam ball which may only bounce twice when dropped from the same height. Yet how much mechanical energy does our universe have? It has been pointed out that in several papers published in Nature that even if the universe contained enough mass to halt its expansion, any ultimate collapse would end in a thud, not a bounce (see Guth, Alan H. and Sher, Marc. "The Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe," in Nature, 302. (1983), pp.505-506; Bludman, Sidney A. "Thermodynamics and the End of a closed Universe," in Nature, 308. (1984), pp.319-322). Applying this idea to the model you've referenced, with each new set of universes spawned, more and more mechanical energy to spawn future universes would be used up. And so, there would still only be enough mechanical energy for a finite amount of universes.

There have been many attempts made to escape a singular beginning of the universe. I personally believe there are certain motivations behind theories like Steinhardt and Turok's, which usually introduces a scalar field working on some unknown physics that acts as a third factor to gravity and the universe's self-stretching property. Yet, most justify invoking their new unsupported theory by pointing to an apparent problem within the broadly accepted inflationary model. This problem is usually the same old one as was answered in my previous post, which to quote a similar article to yours: "In particular, questions about what happened "before" the Big Bang cannot really be asked because there is supposed to have been "no before" - since there was no time." (http://www.marxist.com/scienceandtech/big_bang.html) The only people that this problem seems to be an issue for, are materialists who have a distaste for God. This becomes apparent in the same article where it is written: "In the most widely accepted cosmological model, called the inflationary model, the universe was born in an instantaneous creation of matter and energy. It is the modern equivalent of the old religious dogma of the creation of the world from nothing." Other than this distaste for religion and "apparent" problem, the article does to its credit admit that there is no contradictory data surrounding the inflationary model by citing the Harvard University astrophysicist Robert P. Kirshner, "The inflation idea has been tremendously influential... No observation's been found that proves it wrong."

One must ask the question why many are so motivated to look for alternative explanations and are so willing to discard such a well evidenced theory in place of one that usually introduces unknown physics to alter physics we do not know, cannot measure nor understand. While speculation and abstract thinking is certainly good, I think it becomes obvious what drives many to look for infinite universe alternatives, especially when a beginning to the universe is seen as "the modern equivalent" of "old religious dogma."

Kurieuo.

Thankyou for all your reposnses to the OP.

This is all fascinating stuff and it always brings be round to another conclusion. When you think about it this universe could have been anything - the fantasy books we all read could have been our reality - magic, dragons, wizards etc.. And yet thinking logically about it this universe that we are in now seems to be the only way it could have happened for life to exist with order. That concept to me more than anything leads me to beleive in a creator. Where we are is governed so strictly by laws of physics/biology/maths even, that they are all vital to our existence. How unbelievably mortalistic our world is - for our own good and saftey.

It all comes down to the fine tuning arguement again I suppose. Even if there is an Eternal Bulk universe with strings colliding producing 4 dimensional universes like ours, then to me there is a higher probability that nothing like where we are now would ever come to be. But an Eternal Bulk universe to me seems unlikely because it will still consist of matter and matter needs a cause and a beginning.

Frank2005 wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:Bringing more order into a universe surely points to a creator

Does the creator have order? How did the creator come to exist?

According to Ilya Prigogine, ordered structures can be formed in a system which is far from equilibrium (more info). He got a Nobel Prize for his contributions in this area. Our universe started with a state (the Big Bang) which is extremely far from equilibrium, allowing formation of ordered structures such as galaxies, stars, planets and the life on earth. The question is: how could our universe suddenly in such a far-from-equilibrium state?

According to the string theory, our universe (with three dimensions of space) is embedded in the bulk universe which has 10 (or 9) dimensions of space. My idea is that an invisible spirit world first evolved slowly from an empty space in the bulk universe (more info), the intelligent life (God) in this spirit world then created our universe.

Order and complexity are two different buggers....a salt crystal is ordered....a machine is complex...also, isn't that the chaos theory? It's really true that sleeping on something can make you connect the dots...I was trying to sleep and I had to get back on and ask you this. And, with the slaughtered statement "who made God," God 1) did not have a beginning and 2) doesn't need one as He is outside of time and does not fall into the kalum argument

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:with the slaughtered statement "who made God," God 1) did not have a beginning and 2) doesn't need one as He is outside of time and does not fall into the kalum argument

In theology, God is the aseity while in science physical laws are the aseity (self existence, whose origin is incomprehensible by our brain). Regardless of your point of view, I do believe that external to our braneworld (with three dimensions of space) there exists an invisible spirit world in the bulk universe (with 10 dimensions). The spirit world may also have highly intellegent lives, whether you call them God or not.