Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[sjastro]

So enlighten me - explain how the fact that creation of energy at the BB requiring a supernatural event because of it violating thermodynamics, in any way contradicts the rest of the theory.

This is an all too familiar pattern of an ill informed post that requires correction although I suspect the main motivation here is trying to spin your way out after being informed your supporting sources contradict each other.

The BB is not a theory about the creation of the universe but its evolution.
In the interval t = 0 the so called creation time up to t =10⁻⁴³s we know nothing about the universe.
The problem lies with general relativity which is scale dependent theory of gravity, it doesn't work at quantum mechanical scales the universe was in during that time interval.
This is why the development of a quantum gravity theory is important as it will open up what happened in this interval.

The actual BB (hot BB) occurred around t = 10⁻² at the end of the inflation era when the universe reheated due to oscillation of the inflation field as latent heat stored as vacuum energy was liberated which filled the universe with radiation and the kinetic energy of ultrarelativistic massive scalar particles with positive pressure.

It doesn’t deny the theory, it only explains the source of the energy.

This has gone on far enough.

The theoreticians then make a jump in logic and state that the early universe must have been a uniform hot plasma, and that its expansion would have brought about cooling, though this reasoning is contrary to well established experimental physical chemistry and thermodynamics.

There you have it in black and white Bligh explicitly states (wrongly of course as shown in a previous post) expansion doesn't bring about cooling which contradicts your other sources such as Polkinghorne which claim expansion does cause cooling.

 

[Neogaia777]

There are many that are “ Very obvious”

Some in front of tens of thousands witnesses.
Prophesies fulfilled.
Physical evidence.
All sorts.

One problem is some centre around phenomena Protestants would refuse to accept, regardless of truth.

The day a miracle was performed so “ all would see and believe”
13 Oct 1917

3 Infant peasant kids who couldn’t read predicted the fall of Russia before it was even a power.
They Talked of the sign to happen in the time of a pope, who had yet to become a lope, of an “unknown light in the sky in his reign heralding the start of another war,” 20 years later. In the last days of that Pope as the Germans annexed Austria a red light covered the whole northern hemisphere reported in all the worlds papers in jan 38. No Aurora has ever come close.

but They als prophesied a miracle to happen six months ahead,” So all would see and believe”. and it happened at the time and date they said in front of 70000 witnesses, including secular and atheist press, and many professional witnesses . Some reported it up to 30 miles away unaware it would happen , so not mass hysteria.

There are many books full of witness statements. Even of atheist scientists. It also left physical signs. A land turned into a mud bath by days of torrential rain ( which doesn’t dry in days or weeks there, I know I have a villa close by) baked dry in seconds.

However people try to rationalise that extraordinary event as meteorology, cannot explain the prophesy. The time and date were exact. Or the subsequent prophesies fulfilled. They predicted Their own deaths.

Yet Sceptics now refuse to accept any of it regardless. People impose a priori views on it. Science is no longer objective.

It refuses to even test things it does not “ like”, take Eucharistic miracles.

They are discounted by sceptics without even looking at evidence.
remember the statement “ an evil generation looks for signs”

Well, he's already made himself obvious, or "very obvious" to me, but when it comes in trying to explain that to others...? Anyway, God seems to sometimes maybe put a block sometimes there as well sometimes maybe, etc...

God Bless!

 

[chad kincham]

This is an all too familiar pattern of an ill informed post that requires correction although I suspect the main motivation here is trying to spin your way out after being informed your supporting sources contradict each other.

The BB is not a theory about the creation of the universe but its evolution.
In the interval t = 0 the so called creation time up to t =10⁻⁴³s we know nothing about the universe.
The problem lies with general relativity which is scale dependent theory of gravity, it doesn't work at quantum mechanical scales the universe was in during that time interval.
This is why the development of a quantum gravity theory is important as it will open up what happened in this interval.

The actual BB (hot BB) occurred around t = 10⁻² at the end of the inflation era when the universe reheated due to oscillation of the inflation field as latent heat stored as vacuum energy was liberated which filled the universe with radiation and the kinetic energy of ultrarelativistic massive scalar particles with positive pressure.


This has gone on far enough.

There you have it in black and white Bligh explicitly states (wrongly of course as shown in a previous post) expansion doesn't bring about cooling which contradicts your other sources such as Polkinghorne which claim expansion does cause cooling.
Get over it.

That still isn’t a contradiction, because whenever you claim the energy that became matter came into existence, it requires God to create it and wind-up the universe so it can entropically run down - thus unless you’re claiming there was no energy creation at all, I didn’t contradict anything.


However I like how you talk as though BB inflation is cut and dried , and post research results that “prove” its a fact, when Steinhardt, who helped develop inflation theory, now rejects it, and states that it’s been modified so many times that it’s now unfalsifiable, no longer makes any predictions, and all the research facts you’re citing now are meaningless.

 

[chad kincham]

That's weird, because the two things are nothing like each other. Also sjastro told you exactly what it was in the post you replied to:

Too bad though, that Steinhardt who helped develop inflation theory, now rejects it, says that inflation and the flat universe theory was postulated against fine tuning but uses fine tuning itself. and has been modified so many times to get around difficulty with tge theory that it no longer makes any testable and verifiable predictions and so is unfalsifiable, and that research findings about the predictions it made in its original form, that data is meaningless.

 

[chad kincham]

That's weird, because the two things are nothing like each other. Also sjastro told you exactly what it was in the post you replied to:

One’s the SPONTANEOUS creation of life, with no creator needed - the other is SPONTANEOUS creation of universes to explain away fine tuning in this universe, again so no creator for life in this universe is needed.

They’re analogous to me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Too bad though, that Steinhardt who helped develop inflation theory, now rejects it, says that inflation and the flat universe theory was postulated against fine tuning but uses fine tuning itself. and has been modified so many times to get around difficulty with tge theory that it no longer makes any testable and verifiable predictions and so is unfalsifiable, and that research findings about the predictions it made in its original form, that data is meaningless.

Since you either don't know, or are choosing to ignore it:

Scientific ideas do not get cast away because the guy that (helped) invent it doesn't like it any more. There are critics of inflationary cosmology and the fact that Steinhardt is one of them, is neither here, nor there. Personal authority is not determinative in science. Scientists don't get to keep control of their ideas.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One’s the SPONTANEOUS creation of life, with no creator needed - the other is SPONTANEOUS creation of universes to explain away fine tuning in this universe, again so no creator for life in this universe is needed.

They’re analogous to me.

Spontaneous generation of life hasn't been a thing for a couple centuries.

 

[chad kincham]

I said radio *astronomer* (do pay attention) and that's exactly what his CV shows (also a search on ADS). He also ended that career long ago to become a professional liar (er, creationist). [I'm talking of the professionals only.]

I disagree with him in various areas, but he’s not a liar.

 

[chad kincham]

Spontaneous generation of life hasn't been a thing for a couple centuries.

Doesn’t matter - as I said, it’s a recycled version of the old spontaneous creation of life belief, just kicked up a notch to a higher level of spontaneous generation and substituting universes for flies emerging from dung.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I disagree with him in various areas, but he’s not a liar.

Professional creationists are all definitionally liars. They know too much to create so much false content in error. Knowing falsehoods = lies, ergo, liars. All of the big creationist outfits are staffed with liars, especially the "scientific experts". To have the knowledge to find some of these "gotchas" and "counter proofs" requires the understanding that what they put forward contains falsehoods.

I feel confident that a thorough examination of his creationist output will uncover knowing falsehoods.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Doesn’t matter - as I said, it’s a recycled version of the old spontaneous creation of life belief, just kicked up a notch to a higher level of spontaneous generation and substituting universes for flies emerging from dung.

You mean the Big Bang, or inflationary cosmology, or the multiverse?

None of those are based on discredited ideas about living organisms. They are based on physics. (This doesn't mean that inflationary cosmology or the multiverse is necessarily correct, just that it's not based on old-wives tales about flies.)

 

[chad kincham]

All I've asked is for you to engage in a discussion about one of them. Then I offered a chance to discuss a different one. I have no need to view the web site of a scientist who turned propagandist. No one needs you to post (Gish Gallop style) large blocks of his text.

Talk about the speed of light, or don't. It's completely up to you. But until Ross starts posting here, I'm not discussing it with him, only you (or other posters).

Just the speed of light?


I’m no expert on light - all I know is it’s a magnetic wave that also acts like a particle, that it has no mass, and is bent by magnetic or gravity fields, propagates at about 186,000 mps, and that photons are used to test quantum entanglement, that it’s speed is possibly related to quantum field fluctuations and absorption and remission of fermions as it travels through what used to be called empty space, pre quantum theory.

I seem to recall that an increase in light speed would mean a change occurred in all the constants, and would result in stars with excessive UV which would be fatal to life.

 

[chad kincham]

You mean the Big Bang, or inflationary cosmology, or the multiverse?

All three, since the inflationary multiverse theory includes the BB.

 

[sjastro]

That still isn’t a contradiction, because whenever you claim the energy that became matter came into existence, it requires God to create it and wind-up the universe so it can entropically run down - thus unless you’re claiming there was no energy creation at all, I didn’t contradict anything.

Now you are getting desperate by bringing God and myself into the picture.
Neither God nor myself are in anyway responsible for you quoting a source which claims expansion doesn’t cause cooling followed by another source a few posts later which states it does.
You are entirely responsible for the content of your own posts.

The reason for your contradictions is that you are only interested in the anti BB narrative and not the detail which is where you slipped up badly.

However I like how you talk as though BB inflation is cut and dried , and post research results that “prove” its a fact, when Steinhardt, who helped develop inflation theory, now rejects it, and states that it’s been modified so many times that it’s now unfalsifiable, no longer makes any predictions, and all the research facts you’re citing now are meaningless.

This is another example of focusing on a narrative and not on the detail.

Using your logic quantum mechanics was wrong because Albert Einstein one of the early contributors to quantum mechanics and won a Nobel prize in the field for the photoelectric effect went on to become its biggest critic.
The reason why Albert Einstein or Steinhart have been ignored is because these mainstream theories are supported by observation and experiment.
Support of the mainstream theory of inflation as part of BB cosmology which is what I have focused on is found here.
Ask Ethan: How Well Has Cosmic Inflation Been Verified?

 

[Zoii]

No theres no evidence God exists. Even those who believe he does, don't agree on who or what God is. And as for the bible, it grabs at silly proposals - eg explaining the diversity of languages was because someone tried to build a tall tower and God didn't want it getting too close to heaven - or that God got angry so he destroyed every man woman and child and animal - except Noah and his family.

Science really does put the notion of God to the test, and thus far no one can provide evidence.

 

[chad kincham]

Professional creationists are all definitionally liars. They know too much to create so much false content in error. Knowing falsehoods = lies, ergo, liars. All of the big creationist outfits are staffed with liars, especially the "scientific experts". To have the knowledge to find some of these "gotchas" and "counter proofs" requires the understanding that what they put forward contains falsehoods.

I feel confident that a thorough examination of his creationist output will uncover knowing falsehoods.

It’s not about data sets, but interpretation of data, and the naturalistic presupposition imposed on data is wrong and will always be wrong.

 

[Gottservant]

Hello,

I hope I posted on the right place. English is my second language please excuse my grammar mistakes.

I am genuinely curious if there is any independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world, I would prefer an article published in a well estabilished journal. I mostly looking for sciences like: physics, biology, chemistry etc and not sciences like philosophy.
I am curious and wanted to ask you guys, it looked like a good place to ask. This is just a friendly request and no offense meant.

Thank you in advance,
Kind Regards,
Curious about this

There is repeatable evidence that someone believes in God, not that there is a "God".

 

[Mountainmike]

It’s hard to know what would convince.

The blind see. The lame walk. The terminal lose all trace of disease.
But healings don’t get accepted.

Statues weep and bleed in ways that can’t be faked - try Cochabamba.

Stigmatics on prophesied dates and filmed start to finish, so not self inflicted, then wounds healing in hours .That no plastic surgeon could mimic.

Wars , second world and genocides prophesied… nobody could have predicted from study of that society that the rivers of Rwanda would run red with blood abs so many bodies there would be nobody left to bury them. It was prophesied and happened.

Animals too. The doves of bombarral are fascinating!

locutions from those conscious but with delta waves , Science says is impossible.

someone once said “ perhaps if he showed himself it would settle arguments”. My answer is “ he tried that” how did that go!

So I answer with a bible verse “ I praise you that you have concealed these things from wise men, and revealed them to little children” . Too wise by half!
Take 1917!

Mans arrogance that he understands the world is breathtaking. Such as Frankenstein ventner believing he can create new organisms. He should watch Jurassic park….. the philosophical message was right. Playing with forces we do not comprehend.

we are now 100 years from the instruction we must shape up or face the consequences, as predicted the French Revolution years before too. Was the pachamama event the last straw? Covid seemed to start same day!
If it’s true, we are due fire From the sky…

Well, he's already made himself obvious, or "very obvious" to me, but when it comes in trying to explain that to others...? Anyway, God seems to sometimes maybe put a block sometimes there as well sometimes maybe, etc...

God Bless!

 

[chad kincham]

The reason for your contradictions is that you are only interested in the anti BB narrative and not the detail which is where you slipped up badly.

I didn’t slip at all, because my stated goal was to show that secular physicists say inflation theory is very problematic, and in fact Steinhardt pretty much demolishes inflationary theory, and he started it.

In fact I started out with the comment that the only evidence for inflation is red shifting of light, and the fact that they are quantized falsifies their being a Doppler effect, and that the attempts to prop up inflationary theory using non existent dark matter, illustrate its a bankrupt theory.

Steinhardt states inflationary theory has been modified so many times to prop it up that it no longer makes any falsifiable predictions, and I believe dark matter is one of the props.

 

[Mountainmike]

Spontaneous generation of life hasn't been a thing for a couple centuries.

It’s been a thing in the Eucharistic miracles, or so forensics appear to confirm! And that’s a few in the last 20 years….