Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Ben Masada

A Proof That God Exists

365 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Liquid Gardens

Yeah well, that is simply the way I express myself, to make an impact one needs to go a little further than one normally does in a purely scientific discussion. Ultimately this discussion is about God, neh?

Ha, indeed, that was also going to be one of my comments, that you are speaking of scientific topics with the words of an apologist. I really don't know why one 'needs to go a little further' in a discussion about God actually, to me that's just ultimately needless marketing and distortion, and seems to imply that whatever point cannot be made on it's own merits with no embellishments or exaggeration.

If there is no energy in the universe, what word would you like to use in the explanation of why people get sunburns? It sure seems amazing that a concept like energy that has so much utility in our civilization doesn't actually exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
highdesert50

Where probabilities encounter the infinitesimal. There you have God.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Ha, indeed, that was also going to be one of my comments, that you are speaking of scientific topics with the words of an apologist. I really don't know why one 'needs to go a little further' in a discussion about God actually, to me that's just ultimately needless marketing and distortion, and seems to imply that whatever point cannot be made on it's own merits with no embellishments or exaggeration.

If there is no energy in the universe, what word would you like to use in the explanation of why people get sunburns? It sure seems amazing that a concept like energy that has so much utility in our civilization doesn't actually exist.

Hey, I'm like that on all subjects, it is my specific way of expressing myself, it just so happens that this debate contains a scientific component, but that doesn't and shouldn't change the way aperson expresses himself.

Oh there is energy in the universe but it is borrowed energy as I stated, just we ourselves are also made of atoms which again is part of that same borrowed energy, what I am saying is that at its ultimate point all the energy in the universe negates itself to one big fat zero, which indicates that at the beginning when the energy was actually borrowed it was also zero, or is it possible to get something from nothing?

The answer to that question is no, but you can borrow that energy for a time, it ultimately has to be payed back.

Stephen Hawking syays much the same thing in his book Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays...

This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a universe that was smooth and uniform on a large scale, and was expanding at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy, to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Reagan economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy, will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

Hey, I'm like that on all subjects, it is my specific way of expressing myself, it just so happens that this debate contains a scientific component, but that doesn't and shouldn't change the way aperson expresses himself.

Well, I kinda disagree, everyone can express themselves more clearly including myself; to be clear, I'm not trying to say that I express myself any clearer than you. Yes, I do think when you discuss scientific topics you should likewise try to stick to what is generally accepted as the philosophy of science, namely it's tentativeness; words like 'truth' and 'know' are not consistent with that. You just gave me the impression with the statement, "Ultimately this discussion is about God, neh?", that you were expressing yourself in this way because we are talking about God, not just because it's your way of expressing yourself, as if there is some argument or reason to discuss God with less than literally accurate language so as to make an 'impact'.

More to the point, you said earlier, emphasis mine, "We know the answer is 0, but 10^15 is a huge number, that is the number we live in so to speak, that number represents our universe, its energy, but ultimately it has to be paid back and the real and ultimate answer is that there is no energy in the universe." and now you say, "Oh there is energy in the universe but it is borrowed energy as I stated". Your effort to make an impact here results in you making contradictory statements if taken literally. I don't have an issue, nor do I think it's contradictory or surprising, that what we recognize as energy in our universe, which we'll call positive energy, is exactly equaled by negative energy that results in the net energy contained in the universe being zero. As an aside, it also seems to me a little misleading, if I'm understanding the science and your point correctly, to say 'there is no energy in the universe', because at the point where all energy actually cancels each other and this 'borrowed energy' is repaid, there is no universe either. But as you agree, I think, there is energy in the universe now, a lot of it. Again, I'm not saying I'm any better or clearer at communication than you, but I'm definitely willing to receive feedback on when I'm not being clear so I can improve it, and I definitely won't justify it with 'that's just the way I express myself and I shouldn't change it'.

, just we ourselves are also made of atoms which again is part of that same borrowed energy, what I am saying is that at its ultimate point all the energy in the universe negates itself to one big fat zero, which indicates that at the beginning when the energy was actually borrowed it was also zero, or is it possible to get something from nothing?

We don't know though that it came from 'nothing', whatever that is. It is possible that it does come from something but we don't know or can't detect yet (or possibly ever) what that something is. I believe Hawking also said that if there was anything 'prior' to the Big Bang, we would have no way of knowing as there seems to be no way for us to detect any information that could have been transmitted through that event. Again though, mind-blowing and fascinating stuff to me at least, no matter what turns out to be the truth, thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stillvoice

If God does exist should there be an indication of an underlying connectedness to the universe which would suggest a creator and is this possibility already being considered in the cutting edge field of quantum physics?

Also if the universe is eternal does that necessarily rule out the existence of God if as some thinkers have put it that 'mind precipitates matter' then could it be that the universe is an emanation of God or the universe is actually a cosmic Mind thinking itself?

Edited by stillvoice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Well, I kinda disagree, everyone can express themselves more clearly including myself; to be clear, I'm not trying to say that I express myself any clearer than you. Yes, I do think when you discuss scientific topics you should likewise try to stick to what is generally accepted as the philosophy of science, namely it's tentativeness; words like 'truth' and 'know' are not consistent with that. You just gave me the impression with the statement, "Ultimately this discussion is about God, neh?", that you were expressing yourself in this way because we are talking about God, not just because it's your way of expressing yourself, as if there is some argument or reason to discuss God with less than literally accurate language so as to make an 'impact'.

Well I'm glad you you think that way, however I do not. The subject at hand as I pointed out is the proof that God exists as demonstrated by Ben Masada, this makes it a discussion that includes scientifc explanations but it is not about science in the end. Since we are ultimately free to express ourselves the way we wish I see nothing wrong with using forceful language, like the term "truth". You can of course disagree, but it won't change my approach as I'm sure you wouldn't change yours if someone dispproved of yours. So here, we must agree to disagree.

More to the point, you said earlier, emphasis mine, "We know the answer is 0, but 10^15 is a huge number, that is the number we live in so to speak, that number represents our universe, its energy, but ultimately it has to be paid back and the real and ultimate answer is that there is no energy in the universe." and now you say, "Oh there is energy in the universe but it is borrowed energy as I stated". Your effort to make an impact here results in you making contradictory statements if taken literally. I don't have an issue, nor do I think it's contradictory or surprising, that what we recognize as energy in our universe, which we'll call positive energy, is exactly equaled by negative energy that results in the net energy contained in the universe being zero. As an aside, it also seems to me a little misleading, if I'm understanding the science and your point correctly, to say 'there is no energy in the universe', because at the point where all energy actually cancels each other and this 'borrowed energy' is repaid, there is no universe either. But as you agree, I think, there is energy in the universe now, a lot of it. Again, I'm not saying I'm any better or clearer at communication than you, but I'm definitely willing to receive feedback on when I'm not being clear so I can improve it, and I definitely won't justify it with 'that's just the way I express myself and I shouldn't change it'.

Are you stating that you don't understand what it is I'm communicating?

I think I was pretty clear on this, you even demonstrated this by repeating the idea back to me, so what is it that you are not understanding here?

We don't know though that it came from 'nothing', whatever that is. It is possible that it does come from something but we don't know or can't detect yet (or possibly ever) what that something is. I believe Hawking also said that if there was anything 'prior' to the Big Bang, we would have no way of knowing as there seems to be no way for us to detect any information that could have been transmitted through that event. Again though, mind-blowing and fascinating stuff to me at least, no matter what turns out to be the truth, thanks for the info.

Equations must balance and if the end result is zero, what does that tell you of the beginning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

If God does exist should there be an indication of an underlying connectedness to the universe which would suggest a creator and is this possibility already being considered in the cutting edge field of quantum physics?

Also if the universe is eternal does that necessarily rule out the existence of God if as some thinkers have put it that 'mind precipitates matter' then could it be that the universe is an emanation of God or the universe is actually a cosmic Mind thinking itself?

And yet those very connections do exist but the very same scientists will not accept "God" as an answer under any circumstances.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stillvoice

And yet those very connections do exist but the very same scientists will not accept "God" as an answer under any circumstances.

Well this is probably due to the darwinistic orthodoxy which holds sway in the scientific community I hope that a paradigm shift eventually happens which will allow notions such as the possibility of God or a Creator to be seriously discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Well this is probably due to the darwinistic orthodoxy which holds sway in the scientific community I hope that a paradigm shift eventually happens which will allow notions such as the possibility of God or a Creator to be seriously discussed.

I seriously doubt that will ever happen, because science needs evidence that can be confirmed by experimentation. Since God is not a part of this universe, but its creator, they won't find him anywhere within the creation.

Imagine if you will a car. Now take away the knowledge of the process and tools used to build it. Can you work from the created artefact, and from it create an image of the creator?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stillvoice

I seriously doubt that will ever happen, because science needs evidence that can be confirmed by experimentation. Since God is not a part of this universe, but its creator, they won't find him anywhere within the creation.

Imagine if you will a car. Now take away the knowledge of the process and tools used to build it. Can you work from the created artefact, and from it create an image of the creator?

The current and incomplete standard model of the universe necessitates the existence of hypothetical matter and energy which is invisible perhaps in time the model we use to map the universe will encompasses the true extent of creation which might necessitate the existence of a creator?

Edited by stillvoice
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Well this is probably due to the darwinistic orthodoxy which holds sway in the scientific community I hope that a paradigm shift eventually happens which will allow notions such as the possibility of God or a Creator to be seriously discussed.

I hope not, scientific method exists for a reason. Take it away and you get the baseless nonsense spouted by Jor-el. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

I hope not, scientific method exists for a reason. Take it away and you get the baseless nonsense spouted by Jor-el.

Nonsense you say?

And yet everything I say is based on the very science you claim to give us our answers.

Since everybody today so respects Mr. Stephen Hawking I will go with his words in my answer to you...

The no boundary proposal, has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. It is now generally accepted, that the universe evolves according to well defined laws. These laws may have been ordained by God, but it seems that He does not intervene in the universe, to break the laws. However, until recently, it was thought that these laws did not apply to the beginning of the universe. It would be up to God to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going, in any way He wanted. Thus, the present state of the universe, would be the result of God's choice of the initial conditions. The situation would be very different, however, if something like the no boundary proposal were correct. In that case, the laws of physics would hold, even at the beginning of the universe. So God would not have the freedom to choose the initial conditions. Of course, God would still be free to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. However, this may not be much of a choice. There may only be a small number of laws, which are self consistent, and which lead to complicated beings, like ourselves, who can ask the question: What is the nature of God? Even if there is only one, unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations, and makes a universe for them to govern. Is the ultimate unified theory so compelling, that it brings about its own existence. Although Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it can not answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that.

Personally I do not accept Hawkings view on the nature of God because as I said earlier he is a man who is trying to find out how a car was built with no knowledge of the process and tools used to build it. You can't work from the created artefact, and from it create an image of the creator. But you can know that it is an artifact built by a 3rd party, it is this that you are rejecting because of a choice, not because of a lack of evidence.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Nonsense you say?

And yet everything I say is based on the very science you claim to give us our answers.

"Since God is not a part of this universe, but its creator, they won't find him anywhere within the creation."

Like I said, nonsense.

Since everybody today so respects Mr. Stephen Hawking I will go with his words in my answer to you...
So your answer is an opinion from an agnostic (or atheist)? That isn't scientific evidence, even Hawking's wording implies such (he's treating God as hypothetical).

Don't feel bad, many make the same mistake of confusing an opinion or analogy with scientific research.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

"Since God is not a part of this universe, but its creator, they won't find him anywhere within the creation."

Like I said, nonsense.

Please elucidate me on the nonsense part, since I do not see it. As you know, just saying it is nonsense doesn't help your argument, you should be giving me a reason why you do not accept the view. Calling it nonsense is not a reason.

So your answer is an opinion from an agnostic (or atheist)? That isn't scientific evidence, even Hawking's wording implies such (he's treating God as hypothetical).

Don't feel bad, many make the same mistake of confusing an opinion or analogy with scientific research.

You should actually read what he said, not try to "riposte" just for the sake of it.

Yes he is treating God in a hypothetical manner, he is an atheist, but that is not the point, the point here is his actual words that demonstrate he doesn't have the answers even within his scientific theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Please elucidate me on the nonsense part, since I do not see it. As you know, just saying it is nonsense doesn't help your argument, you should be giving me a reason why you do not accept the view. Calling it nonsense is not a reason.

Because you made it up. Where is this scientific evidence you keep speaking of?

The scientific method is what keeps this unsubstantiated nonsense out of scientific explanations.

You should actually read what he said, not try to "riposte" just for the sake of it.

Yes he is treating God in a hypothetical manner, he is an atheist, but that is not the point, the point here is his actual words that demonstrate he doesn't have the answers even within his scientific theory.

And you shouldn't quote mine. You're using a god of gaps and calling it science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Because you made it up. Where is this scientific evidence you keep speaking of?

The scientific method is what keeps this unsubstantiated nonsense out of scientific explanations.

I made what up?, if you have been keeping tabs on the debate you should know that I have not made anything up. I am using the the accepted scientific theory to sustain my view, it backs up the idea that the universe was created from nothing and that is what I am saying, we were created by an outseide agency that is not part of this universe, I call that outside agency God, you have a better explanation please put it out there for us to discuss.

As I explained and see that I need to explain again, if all the enrgy in the universe cancels itself out (and it does) then the end result is 0 enrgy. If the end result is zero enrgy, what exactly did you start with?

And you shouldn't quote mine. You're using a god of gaps and calling it science.

I quote as needed... science does not include God, it runs away from God, it cannot accept the existence of a God, the only possible explanation for science is a universe without God... not because there is no evidence, but because you cannot accept that evidence... at least be honest about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

I made what up?, if you have been keeping tabs on the debate you should know that I have not made anything up. I am using the the accepted scientific theory to sustain my view, it backs up the idea that the universe was created from nothing and that is what I am saying, we were created by an outseide agency that is not part of this universe, I call that outside agency God, you have a better explanation please put it out there for us to discuss.

Okay then, can you provide a scientific paper that shows God exists, is the creator and is outside the universe? Support your claim with science if you insist you're using scientific research.
I quote as needed... science does not include God, it runs away from God, it cannot accept the existence of a God, the only possible explanation for science is a universe without God... not because there is no evidence, but because you cannot accept that evidence... at least be honest about that.
It doesn't run from God, rather people like yourself use God as a god of gaps when you think science has failed. God simply doesn't exist in science, and this evidence you keep drumming on about only exists in your head. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

Since we are ultimately free to express ourselves the way we wish I see nothing wrong with using forceful language, like the term "truth". You can of course disagree, but it won't change my approach as I'm sure you wouldn't change yours if someone dispproved of yours.

I don't know about that. I'm usually fairly tentative to say what I would do for sure under different circumstances, but I'm pretty sure I'd reevaluate how I express myself if the 'forceful language' I use requires me to clarify that when I say, 'there is no energy in the universe', I actually mean the exact opposite.

Equations must balance and if the end result is zero, what does that tell you of the beginning?

Who said the 'end result' is zero? 'End result' does not equal 'net result'. Since we exist in a universe that does have energy, why couldn't that have been the case pre-Big Bang, what if the positive and negative energy never fully cancel each other and there is always some that exists and thus there is never 'nothing'? We know that is not the case because?

Yes he is treating God in a hypothetical manner, he is an atheist, but that is not the point, the point here is his actual words that demonstrate he doesn't have the answers even within his scientific theory.

So he doesn't have the answers yet in his theory, ergo, God? This will be the third time now that it has been mentioned over a couple pages, but do you understand why 'God of the gaps' arguments are fallacious and that they have a very poor track record?

I am using the the accepted scientific theory to sustain my view, it backs up the idea that the universe was created from nothing and that is what I am saying, we were created by an outseide agency that is not part of this universe, I call that outside agency God, you have a better explanation please put it out there for us to discuss.

I do have a better answer than God, namely, it was created by something that has the capability to, accepting your hypothesis, create something from nothing. What kind of information, evidence, rational argumentation, or studies do we have about what can create universes from nothing? Absolutely zilch. Yes, I agree that a being that you have defined as having the power to create something from nothing could have created the universe from nothing, so? I can equally define many other beings and non-beings as being able to do the same thing which would have equal argumentation and evidential value, if any, as long as I am as equally unburdened as you are by any responsibility to show that said being/non-being actually exists.

science does not include God, it runs away from God, it cannot accept the existence of a God, the only possible explanation for science is a universe without God... not because there is no evidence, but because you cannot accept that evidence... at least be honest about that.

This may be the most false thing you've said, which is surprising given the interest you seem to have in science and your ability to converse on scientific topics (but maybe this is more forceful language that shouldn't be taken literally). Science 'runs away' from God in precisely the same way it 'runs away' from 'karma' and 'Hades' and for the same reason: there is no examinable, direct (or what I call, 'good') evidence that any of those exists. No, 'the only possible explanation for science' is a universe without God is false on it's face, 'science' is not the same as 'naturalism'. Do you think that the multitude of religious scientists think they are studying a mirage, or think they believe that the science they are doing does not have an 'explanation' in the universe that they actually think exists? There are plenty of scientists who think that their study of science reveals the majesty of God, and to some extent maybe rightly so, the findings of science I think are absolutely amazing. I don't know on what basis you just place these arbitrary limitations on God; who are you exactly to say that God could not have set up these regular, natural laws as his method of creation?

Science cannot 'accept' the supposed 'evidence' you have for God because your evidence is unconvincing, as is evidenced of course by the vast variety of viewpoints concerning whether any god exists, and if they do, who he is, are there multiple gods, etc. Note that we don't quite see that kind of variability concerning what the sun is, that should tell you something. Agreed though if this was your point: no, science cannot accept poor evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Okay then, can you provide a scientific paper that shows God exists, is the creator and is outside the universe? Support your claim with science if you insist you're using scientific research.

No such paper exists which is absolutely normal, a scientist is a human being and is not suicidal as far as I know, but then there is this...

Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe. However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos which is reproduced here:

One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037 (p. 115)

The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

  1. strong nuclear force constant
    if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
    if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
  2. weak nuclear force constant
    if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
    if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
  3. gravitational force constant
    if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
    if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
  4. electromagnetic force constant
    if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
    if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
  5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
    if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
  6. ratio of electron to proton mass
    if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
    if smaller: same as above
  7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
    if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
    if smaller: same as above
  8. expansion rate of the universe
    if larger: no galaxies would form
    if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
  9. entropy level of the universe
    if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
    if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
  10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
  11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
  12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
  13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
  14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
  15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
  16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
  17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
  18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
  19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
  20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
  21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
  22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
  23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
  24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
  25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
  26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
  27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
  28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
  29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
  30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
  31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
  32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
  33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
  34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Now you can argue as you will, but too many coincidences mount to credible evidence. How does that saying go?

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." (or in this case Godly action... :innocent: )

And then there is this as well:

If you can explain this away then you you are very courageous... Like I said earlier, the evidence is there, the choice to accept or reject its implications is yours.

It doesn't run from God, rather people like yourself use God as a god of gaps when you think science has failed. God simply doesn't exist in science, and this evidence you keep drumming on about only exists in your head.

Now you said something I agree with, God DOES NOT EXIST in science... I think that demonstrates what I am saying. This is why I state that science runs from God, almost any explanation but God will do, even if its the most illogical thing in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pitchp

the big bang is still a theory, physicist don't really know if it actually happened. But for some reason, most of them thinks it did happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MysticWolf

No such paper exists which is absolutely normal, a scientist is a human being and is not suicidal as far as I know, but then there is this...

Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe. However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos which is reproduced here:

One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037 (p. 115)

The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

  1. strong nuclear force constant
    if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
    if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
  2. weak nuclear force constant
    if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
    if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
  3. gravitational force constant
    if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
    if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
  4. electromagnetic force constant
    if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
    if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
  5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
    if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
  6. ratio of electron to proton mass
    if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
    if smaller: same as above
  7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
    if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
    if smaller: same as above
  8. expansion rate of the universe
    if larger: no galaxies would form
    if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
  9. entropy level of the universe
    if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
    if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
  10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
  11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
  12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
  13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
  14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
  15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
  16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
  17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
  18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
  19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
  20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
  21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
  22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
  23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
  24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
  25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
  26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
  27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
  28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
  29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
  30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
  31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
  32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
  33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
  34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Now you can argue as you will, but too many coincidences mount to credible evidence. How does that saying go?

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." (or in this case Godly action... :innocent: )

And then there is this as well:

If you can explain this away then you you are very courageous... Like I said earlier, the evidence is there, the choice to accept or reject its implications is yours.

Now you said something I agree with, God DOES NOT EXIST in science... I think that demonstrates what I am saying. This is why I state that science runs from God, almost any explanation but God will do, even if its the most illogical thing in the world.

That video provides absolutely no proof, all he does is take unexplained coincidences and claims it is the fingerprint of god. It is the same as Aquilo's first post on this topic, the universe exists so god must have created it. I don't accept that as proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

I don't know about that. I'm usually fairly tentative to say what I would do for sure under different circumstances, but I'm pretty sure I'd reevaluate how I express myself if the 'forceful language' I use requires me to clarify that when I say, 'there is no energy in the universe', I actually mean the exact opposite.

But I do not mean the exact opposite, the energy that you and I use and exist from is nothing more than an unpaid bill.

Who said the 'end result' is zero? 'End result' does not equal 'net result'. Since we exist in a universe that does have energy, why couldn't that have been the case pre-Big Bang, what if the positive and negative energy never fully cancel each other and there is always some that exists and thus there is never 'nothing'? We know that is not the case because?

Who said the "end result" is zero?

http://www.lifeslitt...verse-zero.html

An interesting site, the title I think spells it out.

I'm not inventing anything here, just demonstrating what others already know.

So he doesn't have the answers yet in his theory, ergo, God? This will be the third time now that it has been mentioned over a couple pages, but do you understand why 'God of the gaps' arguments are fallacious and that they have a very poor track record?

Oh I do, because no evidence is good enough when seen in the light of the existence of a God, even when said evidence is equally and abundantly accepted within scientific circles, as long as there is no mention of a God.

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

  1. Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
  2. Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
  3. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
  4. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
  5. Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
  6. Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
  7. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
  8. Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
  9. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
  10. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83

I'm constantly amazed at how only one side of the argument is ever demonstrated by some people.

I do have a better answer than God, namely, it was created by something that has the capability to, accepting your hypothesis, create something from nothing. What kind of information, evidence, rational argumentation, or studies do we have about what can create universes from nothing? Absolutely zilch. Yes, I agree that a being that you have defined as having the power to create something from nothing could have created the universe from nothing, so? I can equally define many other beings and non-beings as being able to do the same thing which would have equal argumentation and evidential value, if any, as long as I am as equally unburdened as you are by any responsibility to show that said being/non-being actually exists.

The freedom of your choice is yours alone, the evidence is there, whether you accept it as such or not.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

That video provides absolutely no proof, all he does is take unexplained coincidences and claims it is the fingerprint of god. It is the same as Aquilo's first post on this topic, the universe exists so god must have created it. I don't accept that as proof.

So how many coincidences does it take for you to start thinking about that a little more, 1, 2, 10, 1000?

As I said earlier there is a very wise saying by military strategists that is very applicable here... "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."

So how many coincidences will it take before you realize that in this case we are talking of Godly action?

I think that maybe in this case it one of those, "your evidence will never be enough", no matter what...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

It could also, if you will be reasonable, a case of "the evidence is utterly unpersuasive except to those who already believe," no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

It could also, if you will be reasonable, a case of "the evidence is utterly unpersuasive except to those who already believe," no matter what.

Or we can turn that around and say: "The evidence is utterly persuasive except to those who refuse to believe"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.