scientific proof of god

akindoc

What we know.

Something cannot come out of nothing. If there was ever a state of absolute nothingness (eternal nothing) there would never have been anything. Nothing cannot change state, it would have no boundaries, it would be constant.

Therefore...there was always something!

Whether you want to believe in God or not you HAVE NO CHOICE but to believe that there was always something in existence. If there was always SOMETHING, then this something is not a variable, but a constant.

We know that the universe, and all life and matter within, is variable and temporal. Therefore the universe itself cannot be this required constant. The universe began at some point...but we know that something must have caused it to begin. We know this because of the inherent principle of cause and effect. Nothing happens without a reason/cause.

We know that cause and effect is a universal principle because if it were not the universe itself will be based on anarchy with no rules or laws or principles. Rules and laws require cause and effect. If cause and effect were not the premise of all things then random chaos would be the way things are: planets inexplicably turning into ice cream, humans turning into trees or gold or any other nonsense that you can imagine. There would be no science, logic, or any other method of reasoning. There would be no need for reason...for all things would be random and unexplainable.

OBVIOUSLY crazy things such as this do not occur without reason....and so we can safetly accept the cause and effect principle as law!

So...something must have caused the temporal variable Universe. This something must be a constant (in any event...whatever started the entire chain of existence must be a constant that was always here). If this something was (is) a constant then the question of "what caused it" does not apply. If constant and eternal....the question of "where did it come from" is non applicable and irrelevant.

So LOGICALLY we can see that there is an inherent constant in the universe by which all laws and priniples are derived from and inherent. You don't have to call it God if you do not wish to...but you HAVE to acknowledge its existence in the equation of logic.

Any questions?

Dave!

Yeah, when's the Second Coming?

geraghd

Just one, what has this got to do with proving the existence of God? I mean the subject title indicated that you would outline how science has proven the existence of God.

geraghd

DaveMcG wrote:

Yeah, when's the Second Coming?

Of Jesus or Mohammed?

Dave!

emm.....

both

Zombrex

akindoc wrote:

So LOGICALLY we can see that there is an inherent constant in the universe by which all laws and priniples are derived from and inherent. You don't have to call it God if you do not wish to...but you HAVE to acknowledge its existence in the equation of logic.

Well its not God, any more than the gravity constant is "God" or the speed of light is "God"

Sleepy

Check out the philosophy board, this was dealt with in quite some depth there...

bonkey

akindoc wrote:

What we know.

I always brace myself when a post begins this way, as its effectively a guarantee that something we most certainly do not know will be contained herein.

Something cannot come out of nothing.

And we fall at the very first hurdle!

At a quantum level, this doesn't actually appear to hold, where empty space can divide into a particle and anti-particle, which recombine to produce....nothing. So from nothing, something, which back to nothing returns. Except when the event occurs on the event horizon of a black hole, in which case we get what is known as Hawking Radiation.

So it would appear that from nothing, something can indeed come. At the very least, we cannot be certain that something cannot come from nothing, especially when we lack the ability to determine exactly what nothing is, or indeed to locate or isolate a patch of nothingness.
So we don't know this. It seems like a reasonable thing to assume, but thats not quite the same as knowing.

If there was ever a state of absolute nothingness (eternal nothing) there would never have been anything.

Second hurdle clatters down.

Again, this is assumption, not knowledge. Indeed, conventional theory states that before the Big Bang, time itself (or at least what we identify as time) no more existed than the spacial dimensions in our universe. So all of our best scientific models would appear to contradict with what you claim we know.

Nothing cannot change state, it would have no boundaries, it would be constant.

Assumption, not knowledge. Maybe reasonable assumption, but I'll come back to it cause you're shooting one of your later arguments in the foot here.

Therefore...there was always something!

If all of your assumptions can be shown to be true, this is indeed a reasonable conclusion.

Or does it?

See, if you look closely enough, you'll find that your assumptions don't lead you to your conclusion at all. They require your conclusion to be true in order to be true themselves. So you're "concluding" a circular set of assumptions: effectively arguing that "If a, b, and c are true, we can conclude d....but in order for a, b and c to be assumed true, we must first assume d to be true".

you HAVE NO CHOICE but to believe that there was always something in existence.

Within the boundaries of space-time, yes. Because thats what the always limits the applicability of your reasoning to.

If there was always SOMETHING, then this something is not a variable, but a constant.

Constant you say?

The causation of the universe would require a one-off cause - by your requirement for cause-and-effect.

So there is requirement for your universal creator to engage in a state-change : not-creating-universe, changes to creating-universe, changes back to not-creating-universe.

Ergo, your constant isn't.

The universe began at some point...but we know that something must have caused it to begin. We know this because of the inherent principle of cause and effect. Nothing happens without a reason/cause.

Actually, we don't. We know that cause and effect is a concept which holds at the macro level, within the boundaries of our universe.

Assuming it holds outside the universe is idle, unproveable speculation, which would be on shaky ground anyway given that we know that cause and effect does not hold at a quantum level*.

We know that cause and effect is a universal principle

Universal == within the confines of the universe. Like I said. And even then it still doesn't hold at a quantum level.

because if it were not the universe itself will be based on anarchy with no rules or laws or principles.

Thats simply not true. we don't have a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) / TOE (Theory of Everything) and yet the universe still manages to work.

Put more clearly, the universe doesn't care whether we understand how it works or not. It will continue to work whether we eventually gain understanding of it or not.

So if Cause & Effect doesn't universally hold - as seems probable at a quantum level - that simply means the models based on it are wrong. it doesn't imply that the universe cannot exist.

Rules and laws require cause and effect.

No, they don't. In many of our models they require cause and effect, but thats completely seperate.

Regardless, those rules and laws only exist within the framework of this universe. Your creator-argument is based otuside those boundaries, where there is simply no basis to make this assumption.

If cause and effect were not the premise of all things then random chaos would be the way things are:

You really need to read up on quantum theory. Random chaos, as you put it, is exactly the way things appear to be.

or any other nonsense that you can imagine.

Any other nonsense, you say? Like universes with a self-consistent internal set of conditions springing out of nothing?

You originally said it couldn't happen without all this logical framework. Now, you're saying that without this logical framework, anything could happen, and that doesn't preclude the existence of this universe, without a cause.

OBVIOUSLY crazy things such as this do not occur without reason

But if cause/effect didn't hold, thats exactly what the case would be. Crazy things could occur without reason. Crazy things like our universe.

....and so we can safetly accept the cause and effect principle as law!

You've already assumed it is an in voilable law to reach this conclusion.

I've further shown that if one assumes it doesn't hold true, then one is not prevented from positing the existence of the universe.

So I neither accept that its true as a law in the sense you suggest, nor that its truth is required for the universe to exist.

So...something must have caused the temporal variable Universe. This something must be a constant (in any event...whatever started the entire chain of existence must be a constant that was always here).

We've already covered this ground...

If this something was a constant, it couldn't have created the universe, as the act of creation would be a change in state, which would be inconstant, & volatile.

If its inconstant & volatile, then by your reasoning it can't have created the universe.

whatever started the entire chain of existence must be a constant that was always here

But you argued earlier that everythign has a cause. What caused this constant to exist?

You're merely engaging in sleight of hand here and contradicting yoruself in the process. Either everything has a creator and a beginning, or that rule doesn't unilaterally hold.

You can say it unilaterally holds except for where it doesn't, but that doesn't really give you much, because you can't then suggest that it must hold in certain situations.

If this something was (is) a constant then the question of "what caused it" does not apply.

Why not? The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Does the question of "what caused it" not apply there either?

More importantly, how did this constant, unchanging thing manage to create a universe. Either the universe is constantly being created (which precludes the universe itself being dynamic and preogressive), or a state-change (thus inconstancy) is required. Or time, space, cause-and-effect, and all of the other universally-grounded logic you're employing doesn't apply outside the framework of the universe and none of your theory is based on anything other than idle speculation.

So LOGICALLY we can see

Your logic is not like our earth logic

Any questions?

Just two.

1) Why does this same old argument appear in virtually unchanged form at an almost-constant rate by people who apparently all seem to assume that not a single person in their chosen audience will have any sort of a grounding in theoretical physics and/or the application of logic?

2) Why do so many people have a difficulty realising that the mere idea of there being a scientific proof for God is nonsensical? Religion and science do not mix in this regard. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, as the question is not a scientific one.

jc

* It may still hold at a quantum level, but in a manner we don't understand.

Dades

*applauds bonkey*

God has vanished in a puff of logic.

Zombrex

Er ... yeah ... what he said ^^^


:eek:

Orion

The Atheist wrote:

*applauds bonkey*

God has vanished in a puff of logic.

And he then went on to prove black is white and got killed at the next zebra crossing

Sleepy

bonkey, take a bow. That was the best dismissal of an argument I've seen on boards for a long time.

Unless the jc you sign your posts with stands for Jesus Christ, in which case I'm a little confused.

Love the Hitchhikers guide references lads

Dades

Macros42 wrote:

And he then went on to prove black is white and got killed at the next zebra crossing

Touché - click on my original grinning face for the hidden tribute!

lazydaisy

Isn't faith and not evidence the whole point of religion?

And isnt the more interesting question whether or not that creative energy has a consciousness?

AdMMM

This isn't questioning religions, it's questioning the existance of a god. A god does not have to be worshipped...

Zombrex

|.Murderer.| wrote:

This isn't questioning religions, it's questioning the existance of a god. A god does not have to be worshipped...

Try telling him that! ... Christ!, all he goes on about is worship, day in and day out ... jez!

somedays you just no there must be a higher being up there when your lil bro gets hit by a car at70mph and survives!

Sleepy

No, somedays, you feel like there must be.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

somedays you just no there must be a higher being up there when your lil bro gets hit by a car at70mph and survives!

Never really understood that line of thought ... surely God would just not let him get hit in the first place ...

Sangre

And then God vanishes when he kills 100,000s of people in floods and earthquakes?

bonkey

lazydaisy wrote:

Isn't faith and not evidence the whole point of religion?

It should be. Where problems arise is where - for one reason or another - someone tries to use one of these fields to "impinge" on the other.

F'r example, for an awfully long time the Catholic Church made pronouncements about how the universe both is and was. This knowledge was supposedly divinely inspired, and therefore unquestioningly correct. Except it wasn't. It was religion overstepping its bounds, and sooner or later it got caught once science could show that this divine inspiration was actually no more than some crank talking through the wrong orifice.

Every so often, however, people seem to take this type of thing the wrong way, and instead of seeing religion being made back off to its own space (so to speak), they see it as an attack on religion by science!!! As a result, clearly religion needs to be protected....and seeing as its this scientific reasoning which is the methodology behind the perceived attack, well then we'll just have to use scientific reasoning (or something that can try to pass as it) in the retaliation.

Thus, the above type of post.

Ultimately, teh cynic in me says its an effort by religion to prevent a resurgence in faith. God forbid you have an increasing number of people who believe in God but who have become disillusioned by their religious orders / churches maknig divinely inspired proclamations which are clearly shown to be wrong.

No point in having believers if they ain't followers.

So ultimately, I generally see this 'scientism' as religion running scared from science because its worried that science will cause a fundamental shift from religious-based belief to faith-based instead.

But what do I know.

And isnt the more interesting question whether or not that creative energy has a consciousness?

I'd agree, but I think "what is consciousness" is both an even more interesting question and a necessary precursor to being able to answer your stumper

please trivialise the fact that my bro is in a wheelchair

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

please trivialise the fact that my bro is in a wheelchair

No one is trivilising your brothers accident, just pointing out that it doesn't make much sense to say because he survived there must be a God.

i suppose your right!anyway ive to head to bio lab.g'luck

akindoc

I will further explain things here...

Because the universe is changing, expanding, varying etc. Time affects it, it is not a constant and therefore it could not have always been. an eternal thing would have to be static/constant and unaffected by time. The universe is OBVIOUSLY not that.

Okay.....consider an eternal, unchanging, static, constant entity...which is the cause of all other things. It is the SOURCE of all other things. It is BEFORE all other things and it is AFTER all other things. It is the first and the last, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.

If If there was no consciousness within this POWER SOURCE..this power would be UNCHECKED and RANDOM...for what could hold it back and what would prevent it? Without intelligence there would be RANDOM displays of awesome power and creation/destruction from eternity to eternity.....for it would have NO WILL to prevent it. Therefore, there must be a will/consciouness to maintain CONTROL of this awesome power.

This entity caused all other things (the universe, life etc) then it is extremely POTENT, wouldn't you say? OMNIPOTENT, I would say. It is a POWER source in addition to everything else.

Now this powerful entity didn't just exist BEFORE the universe...it is STILL existing and will always exist. It is a CONSTANT.
That's just one intuition. The other is this:

The question of "WHY?"!!!

WHY do we have life? WHY does the universe exist.

"The principle of sufficient reason". There is a reason for everything, and that reason comes BEFORE everything that requires a reason. All questions and reasons and therefore all knowledge must reside in the first cause...the eternal constant. If answers are to be found..they will be IN the eternal constant. Therefore the constant must be CONSCIOUS to have the answers and in turn to be able to communicate them.

Or else there is no way that WE could even have intelligence or questions.

this thing must be changeless....because change is dependent upon time, which of course, this thing isn't.

My point is, if there were no consciousness/intelligence in the uncaused cause there would be no reason for anything and everything would be at the mercy of chance. Its inherent power of causation would be random, unchecked, unrestrained and without order or purpose. Remember, although it is TIMELESS, it created time (by virtue of creation) and so can still affect temporal events by definition. Without intellegence, we would be at the mercy of an uncaused cause....out of control! Besides where did intelligence come from? If the uncaused Cause were non-intelligent then intelligence itself would have to be temporal. How could intelligence arise out of nothing and return to nothing?

You cannot say that some things just are in reference to the mechanics and processes within temporal things. You can say that about an eternal constant (the concept of God) but about something dependent on time there is always a reason. Something has DEEMED that life must be able to reproduce...in the same way that something has deemed that we have the ability to eat in order to survive so that we can reproduce. My friend there was a TIME when there was NO LIFE....so there must be a RESON why there now IS life. And this reason must also include why life is able to continue.

Why does a computer have a hard drive and an operating system? Someone designed it that way for a reason. You can't say "it just is". Life couldn't just suddenly appear out of nowhere and then instantly have the mechanisms to eat and to reproduce for absolutely no reason whatsoever! Are you telling me that we are just LUCKY that we can breathe and eat and think and move and reproduce ourselves? It just IS without any thought, design or decision behind it?? Come on...you know this not to be true!

If you were following the discussion you will realize that my position, BASED ON UNIVERSAL LOGIC, is that the botomline is that was never an eternal void of NOTHINGNESS. Something always existed....and this something therefore was never created. Simple common sense.

The big bang is not a proven fact, it's a theory which is still under revision and scrutiny. If there really was a big bang which started everything...then this bang had to have been caused...and the cause would have to be God.

God is the first scientist, the superscientist. He designed gravity as part of the order of all things. Gravity helps keep order for one thing. He knows all of the laws before we discover them, because he created them. Even if you don't want to call it God, simply do not underestimate the intelligence of the prime mover: an intelligent eternal constant would know everything and have a reason for everything.

The burden of proof is on the atheist, because they have to explain the existence of all things and the obvious intelligent design of all living processes without an external and independent intelligence/power.

We know God exists simply because of the logic that had been presented and also because of the complexity and intelligence of life. This is all the evidence we need...we just turn the proverbial "blind eye" to it.

If there was no intelligence in the universe...it could be argued that the cause of the universe didn't have to have intelligence. However if this were the case, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Intelligence exists...temporal entities have intelligence (humans) therefore the first cause of intelligence MUST itself be intelligent. Why? Because intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence any more than matter can come from nothing!

So we now have an eternal timeless cause of the universe that also is the source of intelliegence..therfore intelligent itself.

Do you see how we are getting closer and closer to the concept of a "God" that you've been uncomforatble with?

Evolution cannot explain why we are here.

The first life form was a single celled microorganism. It appeared out of thin air with respiratory ability, digestive ability, reproductive ability and every other requirement in perfect harmony in order for it to survive and continue the species.

Then this microorganism reproduced asexually and produced another on just like it. This process continued for EONS until one day it was apparent that there...must have been undetectable mini changes occurring all along through MUTATION..and suddenly we got a Multi-celled organism. A few more millions years of reproduction and evolution driven by mutation...and we got the first plants...and few more million years of evolution through mutation and we got some animals (invertebrates first)...then some fishes, then amphibians, then reptiles, then birds, then mammals and then suddenly some men....who by now had suddenly began to produce SEXUALLY instead of asexually.

Of course we STILL have plants, fishes, reptiles, birds, plants, and single celled asexual life...but that is besides the point.... yeah right!

Naturally evolution is far more COMPLEX than this...but this is just a quick summary.

Questions?

Zombrex

akindoc wrote:

Time affects it, it is not a constant and therefore it could not have always been.

True, the observable universe is about 13 billion years old

akindoc wrote:

Okay.....consider an eternal, unchanging, static, constant entity...which is the cause of all other things.

Why an entity? There is no reason to believe a single entity created anything else any more than there is a reason to believe 3 single entities created everything else. You assume everything must come from one single constant “thing”. That is an assumption, and not necessarily true.

akindoc wrote:

It is BEFORE all other things and it is AFTER all other things. It is the first and the last, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.

Again, why? Even if there was “one” thing, why does it have to be constant or make everything else. For all we know what ever the first thing was it changed into what we know as the universe

akindoc wrote:

Without intelligence there would be RANDOM displays of awesome power and creation/destruction from eternity to eternity.....for it would have NO WILL to prevent it. Therefore, there must be a will/consciouness to maintain CONTROL of this awesome power.

Sorry, but now you are going right off the boat .... there is no logical reason to believe this. I am not quite sure you imagine when you think of the “entity” but why must it be of awesome power? (what is “power” outside the laws of our universe anyway). And who is to say the creation of the universe was not just part of some other cycle existing outside of our universe, like the creation of complex atoms takes place inside a star. And a star doesn't have to have a consciousness does it?

akindoc wrote:

Now this powerful entity didn't just exist BEFORE the universe...it is STILL existing and will always exist. It is a CONSTANT.

Again, why? Who is to say that your entity didn't destroy itself while producing the energy for the big bang, or even who is to say it didn't turn into the energy for the big bang.

akindoc wrote:

The question of "WHY?"!!!

WHY do we have life? WHY does the universe exist.

Does there have to be a “reason”?

akindoc wrote:

"The principle of sufficient reason". There is a reason for everything, and that reason comes BEFORE everything that requires a reason.

You are confusing reason with purpose. The “reason” my feet are wet is because it was raining and I walked in a puddle. The puddle didn't wet my shoes on purpose or with a purpose in mind. There was no intelligence on the part of the puddle when the water molecules decided to be absorbed by my socks. But one can still clearly say the reason my feet are wet is because of the water in the puddle.

akindoc wrote:

All questions and reasons and therefore all knowledge must reside in the first cause...the eternal constant. If answers are to be found..they will be IN the eternal constant. Therefore the constant must be CONSCIOUS to have the answers and in turn to be able to communicate them.

The knowledge of what happened to my soaks is contained in the puddle. Does that mean the puddle is conscious of itself? No it doesn't. You are making so many assumptions and illogical leaps here it is hard to keep up.

akindoc wrote:

Or else there is no way that WE could even have intelligence or questions.

That doesn't make sense. That is like saying the atoms in our brain must be intelligent otherwise there is no way they could pass this intelligence onto our brain organs

akindoc wrote:

My point is, if there were no consciousness/intelligence in the uncaused cause there would be no reason for anything and everything would be at the mercy of chance.

Firstly something can have a “reason” and still be a product of change. Secondly, you are mixing up the definitions of “reason” here, you are confusing reason (as in “what happened to make that happen”) with purpose (as in “why did you/it choose to make that happen”).

akindoc wrote:

Its inherent power of causation would be random, unchecked, unrestrained and without order or purpose.

Who says it isn't. There is no evidence to believe that the creation of the universe wasn't some completely random event, or for that matter some completely predictable event, but one that didn't require intelligence, like an apple falling from a tree.

I could go on, but this seems to be going no where. Your entire premiss is based on wild illogical assumptions. You assume things cannot happen or exist without an intelligence behind them, and then use the fact that they do exist to prove that this intelligence must also exist. This ignores the fact that things can exist perfectly fine without the intelligence to begin with.

bonkey

akindoc wrote:

Okay.....consider an eternal, unchanging, static, constant entity...which is the cause of all other things.

Cause implies doing. Doing implies change. Change implies inconstancy.

An eternal, unchangin, static constant entity therefore cannot be the cause of anything.

If If there was no consciousness within this POWER SOURCE..this power would be UNCHECKED and RANDOM...for what could hold it back and what would prevent it?

OK.

So, an unchecked random, infinitely lasting power source would eventually, through the laws of probability, have to take the form - as part of itself at least - of our universe.

Without intelligence there would be RANDOM displays of awesome power and creation/destruction from eternity to eternity.....for it would have NO WILL to prevent it. Therefore, there must be a will/consciouness to maintain CONTROL of this awesome power.

No, there doesn't. Infinite randomness must eventually produce within itself finite bounded regions within which order will appear to exist.

Now this powerful entity didn't just exist BEFORE the universe...it is STILL existing and will always exist.

You still don't appear to get the concept that before, still, and always are dependant on time, which is a framework that only applies inside the universe. The concepts of power, causality, dimensionality, time, change, constancy and so forth all require a universe to exist within.

You can posit that there is a greater framework outside our universe, but you cannot use concepts from within our universe and conclude that they must also exist without. Your arguments don't preclude other possibilities, and indeed your concept of a constant which is capable of taking action and thus undergoing state-change doesn't even hold logically within our universe. So you're not even just defining that the outside our universe as following from intrauniversal-bound logic, but you're making it arbitrarily different whenever the need presents.

The question of "WHY?"!!!

Nothing to do with science, I'm afraid. The only why answer science can offer to that is because if it were different, you wouldn't be here to ask this question, which is a polite way of saying "because it is".

My point is, if there were no consciousness/intelligence in the uncaused cause there would be no reason for anything and everything would be at the mercy of chance.

Yup. And while the convenient argument of the self-assembling watch is often presented, it is done so by completely ignoring that in an extra-universal model, there is no limitation to prevent an infinite number of random combinations and permutations. And that doesn't prevent the universe as we know it from existing in the slightest. There's been quite a lot of theoretical speculation done in this area, and believe me, there only argument in favour of a guiding intelligence is our own discomfort in dealing with single instances within infinities. Not that its any less valid a model, mind. Its just that there is nothing to scientifically sway the argument one way or the other because its all just conceptual, at the end of the day.

Without intellegence, we would be at the mercy of an uncaused cause....out of control!

Whereas with intelligence we're at the mercy of an uncaused cause (by your logic), which could equally be out of control.

I should point out that we now have a constant, unchanging, infinite source of "power" which is capable of action and intelligence. I should also point out again that you're conveniently dropping the need for consistence with intrauniversal logic when it suits, while insisting it must apply at other times. The only apparent distinction in which way it goes would appear to be that it conveniently leads towards your conclusion at all times.

but about something dependent on time there is always a reason.

Really? Could you give me the reason why atoms decay when they do? Why quantum tunnelling occurs at all, and why it does when it does?
Can you explain why a single photon can interfere with itself in a two-slit experiment, as long as we don't check which slit it went through?

There must be a reason for all of these things, right? Or are you just assuming that there must be a reason because you simply refuse to accept that there cannot be one?

Life couldn't just suddenly appear out of nowhere and then instantly have the mechanisms to eat and to reproduce for absolutely no reason whatsoever!

I refer anyone still reading to the comment I made earlier about being uncomfortable with infinities and the patterns that they simply cannot rule out, and more often inevitably require.

Are you telling me that we are just LUCKY that we can breathe and eat and think and move and reproduce ourselves?

No.

I'm telling you that your argument is not scientific proof that God exists, which the thread title very clearly states it to be.

It is neither scientific, nor proof of anything.

I do not, however, suggest that the underlying conclusion is wrong. To do so, I'd have to be able to prove that something else is correct, and as I said at the outset, its a question that science doesn't and cannot answer.

that my position, BASED ON UNIVERSAL LOGIC,

But its not. Its only based on such when its convenient.

Something always existed....and this something therefore was never created. Simple common sense.

Common sense it is indeed. That doesn't make it either correct or scientific proof.

As an aside, you have heard, I'm aware, of the cyclical model, where the ending of the universe in a big Crunch is also a big bang. The math behind String (and now -brane) theory suggests that as our 3 dimensions contract below the Planck Constant in size, there is effectively another 3 dimensions (or the inverse of these 3...its been a while since I browsed this stuff) which expand above this size.

Think of a balloon pinched in the middle. You squeeze one side, the other expands. THen it contracts and the first expands. Back and forth, back and forth. Of course, our current model of an open-ended universal expansion (the Big Cold as opposed to the Big Crunch) would put an end to that, but we're not sure about how it will all end.

The point I'm making is that even in speculative physics, there is no shortage of theories which can allow an infinite, dynamic, random something which is our universe. Not something that caused it..the universe is all there is and its random.

The big bang is not a proven fact, it's a theory which is still under revision and scrutiny.

And yet you think you can go one further and scientifically prove the existence of God?

Please.

If there really was a big bang which started everything...then this bang had to have been caused...and the cause would have to be God.

By assuming there must be a cause, you implicitly require a God. You have yet to prove there must be a cause. In fact, its the one point you've really not addressed at all, other than insisting it must be so.

The burden of proof is on the atheist,

The burden of proof is on anyone who dares to claim to be able to prove something. The smart atheist will believe there is no God, just as the smart faithful will have their belief.

We know God exists simply because

Belief. Knowledge. Not the same. Neither equates to proof.

If there was no intelligence in the universe...it could be argued that the cause of the universe didn't have to have intelligence. However if this were the case, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Exactly. So how do you know we aren't not having this discussion in a parallel set of probabilities?

OK. Low blow. I shouldn't stoop to using a universal negative to discredit your argument. Let me rephrase.

I posit that an infinite number of parallel universes all exist, where every possibility is represented. At every "moment", a new infinity of states evolve from each universe. It is utter and total randomness....which is simply an apparently-ordered part of an even larger infinite randomness.

There is no need for intelligence, and I'm reasonably certain you cannot provide a single scientific reason why your framework is any more credible than mine. All you can do is appeal to the discomfort people have in dealing with the scariness of infinities. Because they are really scary.

Do you see how we are getting closer and closer to the concept of a "God" that you've been uncomforatble with?

I'm not uncomfortable with the concept of a God. I'm uncomfortable with the suggestion that your argument is scientific.

Evolution cannot explain why we are here.

It doesn't try to. It doesn't need to. The question of "why" is not one science is equipped to deal with beond a certain point, at which stage it becomes belief/religion/faith. I have no problem with this. I have a problem with belief/religion/faith trying to hijack science to its detriment and for its own gain.

Questions?

Just one.

Do you understand what the basic requirements for a scientific proof are?

If you do, can you explain how your theory meets them.
If you don't, can you explain how you can claim your theory is a scientific proof in the first place.

jc

Orion

akindoc wrote:

Various leaps of faith

I would suggest you read Thomas Aquinas' Five proofs for the existence of God. His argument have equivalent leaps of faith that yours do.

For example:

The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never have got started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God.

Sound familiar? It's very similar to one of your arguments. But even though Aquinas is the foundation of all Catholic teachings since the middle ages doesn't make him right. There is a huge leap between the unmoved first mover and then calling it God. Basic logical argument is based on all steps in the argument being linked one after the other. If you can't find a link between two stages then you must either (a) abandon the theory, or (b) Go back a step or 10 and find another path.

ChilleR~

Does anyone having any opinions or comments about the idea of Intelligent Design? I think the idea of ID fits into this topic quite easily. Read into a few of these reports at this website:http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Zombrex

ChilleR~ wrote:

Does anyone having any opinions or comments about the idea of Intelligent Design? I think the idea of ID fits into this topic quite easily. Read into a few of these reports at this website:http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Yeah, it has no scientific merit ... in other words there is no scientific reason to believe that life must have been created by an intelligence.

The biggest problem the scientific community have with ID is that it is based on a an absolutly huge and unfounded assumption, that being "if we don't understand how this could have happened, it must be too complex to have happened naturally, therefore there must have been an intelligence behind it" ...it is a huge, rather illogical and arrogent, assumption, an assumption that goes against the fundamental principles of scientific study.

If you allow such a huge assumption to enter the realm of scientific study you are on a very very slipperly slope which could eventually lead to the complete unravelling of modern scientific standards. Which is why there is such strong opposition to even considering, teaching or discussion ID within the scientific community.

Unfortunatly this opposition has been spun by the ID/Creationist crowd as evidence that the modern scientific communit are as unreasonable and as fanatical as a religion, that they won't even allow people with different opinions to express these opinion, and that they are out to destroy the idea of God. This "pro-ID" crowd (for want of a better description) are trying to force the scientific community to admit to considering ID through the threat that they are out of touch and arrogent.

They miss that point that it is not the idea of intelligent design that is the major problem, but it is the destruction of the scientific method that recongisning the idea as valid and worth considering would cause that is the problem the scientific community have with the idea of ID.

Excelsior

Wicknight, I agree completely that ID is not science.

But when you talk of the scientific community and then words later of the ID crowd, forgive me for sensing a strong prejudice against advocates of ID.

I don't think philosophy should be taught in science class (and if it must, I want good philosopohy) and that is what teaching ID amounts to. You are making a tabloidesque ridiculous argument if you seriously claim that the empiricism will somehow be infected by the High School curricula of Kansas.