Using Science to prove that God EXISTS!!!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Undisputable Fact Number One:  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.

Undisputable Fact Number Two:  Based on the 1st law of Thermodynamics, energy within the natural universe is conserved; it can NOT be created by natural forces.

Undisputable Conclusion:  The existence of the universe requires a beginning to the universe by a supernatural force.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You are wildly misconstruing scientific theory.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm

No, you just don't know how to read.  The link you gave is in agreement with what I posted on the first thread concerning the 2nd law of Thermo.  Using language in the terms of the link you cited, we are not currently in a 'heat bath of photons', therefore, the universe is not infinitely old...it had a beginning.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You are wildly misconstruing scientific theory.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm

But...but... the conclusion is undisputable!

You should think more before talking, that way you won't waste as much time removing your foot from your mouth.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

He still talks more sense with his foot in his mouth than you do with your feet on the ground

Well, if you and he are in agreement, then you two should have no problem proving the universe is infinitely old even though there is still plenty of usable energy.  

Then you two can split the million dollars when you win the Nobel prize for physics.

But, as it currently stands, the percentage of scientists in DISsagreement with you is somewhere on the order of 100%.  But, hey, don't let that discourage you.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This has absolutely nothing to do with proving God exists.

Contrary to popular misconception, big bang theory does not say that all the matter in the Universe came from nowhere.

As a devout Christian, people like these who try to take what they learned in High School science and disprove scientific theories they know nothing about in actuality, embarasses me.

so which one of the below items are you disputing?

Undisputable Fact Number One:  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.

Undisputable Fact Number Two:  Based on the 1st law of Thermodynamics, energy within the natural universe is conserved; it can NOT be created by natural forces.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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

The above is on the idea you have described here, as well as criticisms. Go to that section, specifically the scientific ones.

Did you even bother to read it yourself before posting the link?  Because if you would  have, you would have noticed that the writer was totally unable to come up with anything that would point to the universe being infinitely old and his response to his own arguments was..."[An finite age for the universe] is still an open question, although the standard Big Bang cosmology is consistent with it.... [Arguments for an infinite age for the universe are] however, are NOT compatible with the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe."

So, even the link you posted had to admit my claim that the universe had a beginning is:
1) is consistent with Big Bang cosmology
2) is compatible with the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe.

What you are going to find is that any scientist trying to argue for an infinite age of the universe will have to admit that his argument runs contrary to current scientific understand, i.e. the theory of an infinitely old universe runs contrary to the laws of nature as science currently understands them.

Thanks for helping me make my point!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

nothing in there validated your point whatsoever.

Except the tiny part about a finite age of the universe being "compatible with the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe."

---

The end statement was in fact that there is no scientific consensus that the universe has a finite age.

That is because he was admittedly conjecturing outside of the known laws of the universe, but when confined to what is known about the laws of the universe, these “non-consensus” opinions are NOT "compatible with the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe."
 
This guy just won’t admit that his own science proves him wrong; therefore, he moves the argument outside of current scientific understanding.

---

Further, nothing in your point really proves God anyways - even assuming a universal finite age, it could have been something else entirely that brought it about, including natural forces that we simply do not currently know about.

“Including natural forces that we simply do not currently know about”?  Really?

So, you are like the scientist you quoted – when your idea runs contrary to current scientific understanding, you claim current theories are wrong and that you will be proven right when science replaces its current theories.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Undisputable Fact Number One:  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.

Undisputable Fact Number Two:  Based on the 1st law of Thermodynamics, energy within the natural universe is conserved; it can NOT be created by natural forces.

I suppose that divine energy is somehow exempt from your "Undisputable Facts"?

explain what you mean

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst...even if everything you're saying is true (which it isn't) who says that God is the cause?

Then simply replace the word "God" with "supernatural force".  Since the 2nd law of thermo leads to the conclusion that the natural universe is finite, it requires a supernatural event to set it into motion.

The universe still contains useable energy, therefore the universe is not infinitely old.  That is a undisputable fact as long as we stay within the limits of current scientific understand.

Basically, unless mankind proves current theories wrong by discovering the power to create energy from nothing, we are stuck with a finite age for the universe.  In other words, unless man finds a way to harness what would currently be considered the supernatural power of creation, he is left with the conclusion that there must have been a supernatural force in order for the universe to exist.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, you are like the scientist you quoted – when your idea runs contrary to current scientific understanding, you claim current theories are wrong and that you will be proven right when science replaces its current theories.

Let me tell you a little story about something called "The Law of Gravity". It was previously thought that we knew everything about the behavior of gravity, so it was thought of as a scientific law. Later it got booted down to theory, because it turned out that gravity behaves differently in certain circumstances, and we don't know everything about it after all. The lesson - 'current scientific understanding' is not absolute and all knowing, so it's foolish to pretend otherwise.

Again, you're basing your argument on presumption of undiscovered theories that will prove current theories wrong.  Basically, your basis is nothing more that "hope" itself because your ideas contradict every single scientific observation made by man.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why should one apply your argument to natural energy, but not to supernatural energy (i.e., the energy of God)?

In other words, why is it possible for supernatural energy to predate the universe, but not possible for natural energy to predate the universe?

Natural energy defines the natural universe - you can't have one without the other.

Supernatural forces, likewise by definition, are defined as those not limited to the laws of the natural universe.  That is why they would be super-natural...or maybe 'super' should be replace with 'extra'.  (I didn't invent the term.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not quite sure what the debate is about. jmfcst has summarized two points, supported by data that describe the universe as we know it today.

Thanks for this comment, along with everything else you added.  I was hoping you would join this thread.

My argument is rather straightforward, but I probably should add a caveat:

Undisputable Fact Number One (assuming one stays confined to what is currently known about the laws of the universe):  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.

Undisputable Fact Number Two (assuming one stays confined to what is currently known about the laws of the universe):  Based on the 1st law of Thermodynamics, energy within the natural universe is conserved; it can NOT be created by natural forces.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Now in our current cosmological theories the universe was once very small.  Amazing things can happen on the very small level, and those quantum effects we have confirmed.  Don't make overarching statements like "every single scientific observation made by man."  Most likely what you mean is the common sense view of the world you know.  Now that works most of the time, but when dealing with the exotic, early universe, those laws break down.

The four laws of therodynamics do NOT depend on the details of the interactions or the systems being studied, no matter how exotic. Therefore, they can be applied to systems about which one knows nothing about.

That is how Einstein predicted spontaneous emission at the quantum level.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not quite sure what the debate is about. jmfcst has summarized two points, supported by data that describe the universe as we know it today.

Thanks for this comment, along with everything else you added.  I was hoping you would join this thread.

My argument is rather straightforward, but I probably should add a caveat:

Undisputable Fact Number One (assuming one stays confined to what is currently known about the laws of the universe):  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.

We don't know much about the physics of the instant the big bang occured, so that is an unreasonable assumption.

Well, how much time, exactly, do scientists think this "instant" is going to add to 13.7 billion years?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

all i'm saying is that humans have a remarkable tendancy to presume that they are always right-as you pointed out. But who says that we are right today? In a few thousand years, there is every possibility of our bliefs being presented in a similar way.

I agree 100%. Who is to say we are correct today? People who live today? My point isn't that people were wrong yesterday, but they are right today. It's let learn a little patience - we could be as wrong today as they were yesterday, we don't know everything, let us learn from our mistakes - can we not just admit that and keep working on learning in an honest fashion.

Well, if everything science thinks it now knows is going to change, then scientists should keep their mouths shut because that would mean they know nothing at all.

You can’t have it both ways folks.

Here is the situation I find myself in:  If I attempt to play on my own home court by quoting scripture, I hear “That book is just a bunch of myths”….ok…So then I decide to give up home field advantage by quoting science, but now I am hearing “We scientists don’t know what we’re talking about, after all, we have a history of being blown to and fro by every theory which masquerades as knowledge, and we’re sure to jump on the next fine sounding bandwagon that comes along.”

So, what shall we conclude?

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe…For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.  (1Cor 1:20-25)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The problem is that you keep trying to state that something is true, which makes the scientists remind you that nothing is known with absolute certainty.  If, on the other hand, you stated that something is more likely to be true than its alternatives given what is currently known, that would probably be more productive.

If you're looking for absolute truth, you just aren't going to find it.  That's just the way things are.  It certainly may and, indeed, is quite likely to exist, but whether we can ever know that we have it is another story.

Your statements are fair enough, but not truly realistic.

Math is a form of science, yet it contains “proofs”.  Are you really unsure 1+1=2 will remain constant?

In the first post on this thread, I listed two “undisputable” facts:

1) It is a FACT that the 2nd Law of Thermo equates to the universe having a finite age.  Now, you can argue whether or not the 2nd Law is correct & whether it will hold up to the test of time, but you can’t argue the conclusion of the 2nd Law in its current form.  And since the 2nd Law has passed every test to this date, there is NOTHING that can currently dispute it.

2) It is a FACT that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can NOT be created by natural forces.  Again, you can argue if the 1st Law is correct, but you can’t argue what the 1st Law is stating.  Nor can you dispute the 1st Law through any experiment that has been conducted up to this point in time.

So, up to this point in time, these two FACTS are UNdisputable and the two Laws that form their basis are UNdisputed by any current experiment.

Therefore, at this point in time,  we stand at one Undisputable Conclusion:  The existence of the universe requires a beginning to the universe by a supernatural force. 

As muon2 stated: This conclusion "is consistent with data."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

One leading scientific theory about the creation of the universe is that there will eventually be a 'Big Crunch'.  It has already been noticed that the expansion of the universe from one central point has been slowing down.  One theory that follows is that it will eventually stop expanding, and begin the slow process of collapsing back in on itself.  Eventually, it will return to one single point, which would reach critical mass and explode once again in a new 'Big Bang' all within the space of fractions of milliseconds.

Of course, this theory is no more credible than those presented by leading religions.  However, it is fair to say that it is speculation that is based on factual evidence, as opposed to merely fantastical guess-work.

In any case, this theory would serve to skirt the rule that energy and mass cannot be created from nothing.  What it doesn't do is explain how or why this oscillation began, or how or if it will ever stop.

Actually, the 'Big Cruch" theory as already been discarded by astronomers due to the discovery of Dark Energy.  The speed of the expansion of the universe is INCREASING, not slowing down.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I would much rather put my own faith in a school of thought that is pragmatic in order to be right, than one that is unflinchingly dogmatic even when wrong.

Yet my dogma is supported by the data coming from the current school of pragmatic thought.

Confusing times for non-believers, eh?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I would much rather put my own faith in a school of thought that is pragmatic in order to be right, than one that is unflinchingly dogmatic even when wrong.

Yet my dogma is supported by the data coming from the current school of pragmatic thought.
Confusing times for non-believers, eh?

Unless the entire extent of your belief system is that God exists, I think it's a stretch to say that all of what you believe is supported by what science currently believes to be true.

Sounds like you’re conceding the fact that the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermo agree with my dogma and you are now wanting to shift the argument to examine other areas of my belief system.

So which area do you think Christian doctrine would contradict science? Do you want to debate the resurrection of Christ?  Or do you want to choose another area?

How about this?:  Along with you picking the next area of Christian beliefs, I’ll let you create a new thread offering scientific arguments to the contrary to any area of doctrine you so choose.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Saying that all evidence at this point in time indicates that there is a beginning to the universe is only evidence of a beginning point, not of what caused that beginning.

I completely agree with this statement and it is in agreement with the 2nd Law.

---

There is no more evidence that a supernatural human like being created the beginning than there is that a super natural aardvark like being created it

And I also agree with this statement.  The supernatural force isn’t identified, but it is supernatural…in agreement with the 1st Law that the natural universe cannot create energy.

---

…or that a stray particle from the 27th dimension shifted into this space and exploded, or anything else anybody in the world wants to dream up.

You are contradicting yourself - You’re describing an natural action within an already existing natural universe, not the creation of the universe.  Before the universe existed, there was no space, time, stray particles, or energy.

Neither the stray particle nor the 27th dimension would have existed prior to the creation of the universe.

Try again…starting with no energy, no particles, no space, and no time.

---

We simply don't know enough presently to determine the why of it and, from my perspective, we have assigned so many things to super natural human like beings over the course of our history as a species and been dead wrong about it that I find that particular answer to be fairly tired and convenient. The last 47,000 times (yeah that’s a random number I pulled out) we as race were wrong about super natural human like beings control the forces of this universe, but just you wait, this time there really is a super natural human like being behind it! Like I said, it’s tired. Religion is too often the boy that wouldn’t stop crying “wolf”, after a few thousand years I would think people would start to catch on. 

And after that long winded speech, you’re still left with the 1st and 2nd Law pointing to a finite universe that had to created by a supernatural force.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No, we are not left with a super natural force. We are left with something we don't understand. There is nothing that excludes a natural force that we have yet to identify, I'm certainly a believer that there are mountains of physical principles that we have yet to understand. Just because we don’t understand something currently doesn’t mean that only a super natural force could have done it. That is exactly the kind of reasoning that allowed people in the past to believe the sun was pulled across the sky by some super natural being in a chariot.

I'm also not willing to say that this universe is the only universe or to say that our understanding of thermodynamics is perfect, the odds are very, very good that our understanding is not perfect. Maybe the 27th dimension has been around forever, and the stray particle that created this universe somehow entered a void space in the space time continuum, and bang, our universe was created. I have no idea and I have no idea if the answer to such a question as “what created the universe” is even graspable by the structure of the brains of human beings. I'm just trying to point out the silliness of pretending that we do have an idea at this point in time, while at the same time noting that super natural human like beings have been our incorrect answer so many times in the past to such gaps in our understanding that it seems to be more an act of human psychology to want to believe in super natural human like beings, than any thing remotely approaching deductive reasoning.

You can argue all you what science MIGHT discover, you might even replace 1_1=2 while your'e at it.  But the undisputable fact is that ALL the data gathered by scientists points to a universe that is finite in age which could not have created itself.  Period.

Go argue with Muon2.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Let me ask this question. Was thermodynamics a supernatural force prior to us gaining enough of an understanding of it stop attributing its actions to super natural human like beings?

I don’t know how the flow of heat was viewed before thermodynamics.  I just know that all of science’s current measurements agree with the 1st and 2nd Laws.

To say that the Laws WILL be replaced simply because other scientific ideas have been replaced is tantamount to discounting science altogether.

You can’t throw out the results of scientific experiments simply because you don’t like what the data is telling you. Or at least you can’t discard the results until they are proved wrong.

---

The reasoning you are using is the same the ancients used to determine that the Earth was the center of the universe, that lightning was thrown down upon the land by super natural human like beings, that rain was the tears of gods, etc.

So, you are saying that my acceptance of the 1st and 2nd Laws is tantamount to believing in the Tooth Fairy?  Then what is to be said about those that believe in evolution, because evolution is much LESS testable and much more restricted than the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermo?

The Laws of Thermo are uniform across all possible ranges of time, space, and process.  Yet evolution of the species is restricted to an excedinly minute range of possible environmental settings. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No, I'm not saying that your acceptance of thermodynamics is the same as believing in the tooth fairy. I'm saying that reaching the conclusion that because we have no mechanism to explain the origins of the universe that a super natural force must have done it is similar to the ancients concluding that a super natural force was the cause of the sun rising because they had no mechanism to otherwise explain it.

It not simply that they have no natural mechanism, it's that there own Laws state that there can NOT be a natural mechanism.  And those Laws are supported by all data points across all ranges of time, space, and energy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

nlm,

My point is simple:  Science accepts the Laws of Thermo to be true and universal. 

And since science accepts the Laws to be true and universal, it also accepts the conclusions drawn from the laws:  the universe is finite in age and size and was NOT created by any force of the universe.

These Laws are the current beliefs of science, and have been for some time, and are backed-up by all the data currently obtainable by scientific observation.

There is currently no scientific reason to not accept the Laws as being true.   And they will continue to be considered true until they are proven false.

You need to reconcile yourself to science.

The mere fact that the universe is expanding proves that entropy is increasing.  In fact, the mere existence of space itself can only be defined in terms of its entropy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The bible and science are also in agreement on the use of the term "create".

The bible only uses the term "create" relative to an action of God, not man.  Man is never spoken of in the bible as having to the power to "create".

The 1st Law states that the total energy of the universe is constant.  Energy can not be created by anything in the universe.

The two are in agreement.