Using Science to prove that God EXISTS!!!

[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."

[Joe Republic]

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.

[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.

[Joe Republic]

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.

Then it would seem my high-school physics knowledge is somewhat out of date.

In which case, it shows that the scientific 'faith' is one that is constantly changing to keep up with the ongoing discovery of solid facts.  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.

[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?

[muon2]

I have posted a lengthy and relevant reply on another trhread, so I'll link it here. I find no conflict with discernment through faith and model-testing through science. In fact it gives me satisfaction when they do align in their conclusions. One of my math professors in the 1970's felt the same synergy between mathematics and faith when he considered the special case of the Euler Formula  since it related so many fundmental concepts of mathematics.

[Gabu]

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.

One of my math professors in the 1970's felt the same synergy between mathematics and faith when he considered the special case of the Euler Formula  since it related so many fundmental concepts of mathematics.

If I recall correctly, when Euler gave that special case of his formula, he wrote in the margin, "I have just proven the existence of God."

[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.

[nlm]

It occurs to me that given our present understanding of physics, the only reasonable answer to the question of how the universe was created is "I don't know". It is certainly not improper to add "but I think it was created by x, y or z forces for a, b, or c reason".

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. The traditional human answer to such problems through history, as I pointed out earlier and as jmfcst seems to want to do now, is to assign the action to a super natural human like being. The problem with that is that evidence of a beginning and the evidence that a super natural human like being created the beginning are two entirely different things. 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 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. 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.

[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.

[nlm]

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.

[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.

[Inverted Things]

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.

Jmfcst, math is altogether different from science. Mathematics is beginning from the obvious and proving theorems. Science is looking at the world to try to discover how it works. Mathematics is incredibly valuable to science, which is why it generally gets lumped in there.

Now, the second law of thermodynamics is broken--all the time. The second law states that entropy will PROBABLY increase... hardly a definitive statement.

[nlm]

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.

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?

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.

Admitting that we don't know it all can be tuff, but not admitting it can lead to beliefs similar to the stars being pin holes in a black cloth that covers the sky at night. And worse, it can lead to the absolute belief that such things are proven facts, because nothing we know at the time contradicts that belief.

[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. 

[nlm]

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.

[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.

[nlm]

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.

My conclusion, given what we know, is that we don't know the answer to this particular question. You appear to be concluding otherwise and seem to be operating under the assumption that lack of proof and understanding is in fact proof of something, that being the reasoning used to demonstrate that a very large man held the world over his head.

You also seem to be under the mistaken belief that "their" laws (who ever they is) are intended to be absolute. They are not. They simply express the limits of our current understanding (and I hope that you are not arguing that our current understanding is limitless). When a point is reached were that understanding breaks, and that happens all the time, one can either keep looking to figure out why they break down (which is how knowledge advances) or, I guess, one can just assume that a super natural force did it and be content that all questions have been answered. As I said before, I think history shows very clearly that it is human nature to go with the super natural force idea. It's quick, it's easy, it requires no effort to understand and it allows us to feel knowledgeable and in control. It’s also been wrong at every turn, over tens of thousands of application of the super natural being posit being applied to countless things. But why let a small thing like that stop us from continuing to assume that because we don’t currently understand something that a super natural human like being is responsible for it.

[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.

[Inverted Things]

Like I've said in a couple of other threads: even a pure vacuum is seething with energy.

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

Like I've said in a couple of other threads: even a pure vacuum is seething with energy.

Let's take it from the top and see if we can reach agreement.  Do you agree with the following (if not state why):

1) In a closed system, spacetime does not exist if the total energy of the system is zero.

2) Space and entropy are inseparable - you can NOT have one without the other.

[Inverted Things]

Like I've said in a couple of other threads: even a pure vacuum is seething with energy.

Let's take it from the top and see if we can reach agreement.  Do you agree with the following (if not state why):

1) In a closed system, spacetime does not exist if the total energy of the system is zero.

2) Space and entropy are inseparable - you can NOT have one without the other.

A closed system implies that no energy is entering or leaving a certain area of space. Space is thus necessary to a closed system. If there's space, there's energy (in the form of vacuum energy if nothing else). I suppose on that basis I'll agree with 1.

I can't think of a reason to disagree with 2.

In short, I'll agree to both points.

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

Like I've said in a couple of other threads: even a pure vacuum is seething with energy.

Let's take it from the top and see if we can reach agreement.  Do you agree with the following (if not state why):

1) In a closed system, spacetime does not exist if the total energy of the system is zero.

2) Space and entropy are inseparable - you can NOT have one without the other.

A closed system implies that no energy is entering or leaving a certain area of space. Space is thus necessary to a closed system. If there's space, there's energy (in the form of vacuum energy if nothing else). I suppose on that basis I'll agree with 1.

I can't think of a reason to disagree with 2.

In short, I'll agree to both points.

You "can't think of a reason to disagree with 2"??

Can you think of any reason to AGREE with 2?