Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[chad kincham]

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.

Except it’s clear that he is correct, and that he’s an honest scientist, and goes where the data leads, so is not biased in one direction.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Will you ever read the Eucharistic miracle forensic reports?

Not if I have to buy a book to do so.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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”

Stories like those always grow in the telling; exaggeration and embellishment are characteristic of orally propagated reports. Prophesies are open to broad interpretation and elements that don't fit are ignored - the same kind of attentional biases that keep psychic readers raking in the cash.

Evidence for overnight mud baking would be verifiable film or photographs of the day before and the day after; unlikely to happen, but that's the way it goes. Multiple corroborating contemporary diary entries from eyewitness individuals might give some weight to such claims.

Science today is more objective than it has ever been; you complain because the evidential requirements are too rigorous for your stories and anecdotes.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don’t dispute what you say of some phenomena.
but some also pass the tests you set.

To take one example : mud drying. Many comtemporaneous eye witness reports spoke of it, including professional witness like police, scientific professors and many atheists.

The point I make about Fatima, is an argument can rage about a scientific cause or atmospheric disturbance to try to account. Although it was so unusual it defeats explanation of any kind.

But any explanation of the science doesn’t explain the prophecy. It
was unique, extraordinary and happened at the exact time , date & place stated. That sets it apart. To prove it wasn’t mass hysteria it was also seen from a radius of 30 miles by some not aware of it.

I grant science is somewhat more objective, but it fails when coming to religious phenomena. The statements about red mould by Bialystok were outrageous since they had never seen the sample. To show how damaging it is, Many now quote that dean as alternative.

Ray Rogers - lead chemist on the shroud investigating said the two factions were just as bad as each other.

The religious zealots refusing to accept some of the science, and just as many normally objective scientists losing all objectivity to declare it fake on utterly specious grounds. Including sadly some of the daters like Gove. Mcrone was one of the worst. Read merino see book on the shroud ( a collection of corespondence from 20 years and you see bias personified in some of the daters.

One of the most objective early presentations on the shroud was a porphyrin chemist - (non Christian) Adler who not only explains all the samples and that the blood was real from a traumatised victim, he also explains why the results from other tests done like Mcrones may have been valid science but reached a demonstrably false conclusion. Adler should know. Blood chemistry was his business. But still the nay sayers we’re quoting Mcrone long after he was discredited.

He also explains the duty of scientists like Mcrone that if they want to produce a contra hypothesis, they have to explain why others got the results they did, totally lacking by the failed shroud daters. His discussion to the wider context of scientist duty is interesting.

Stories like those always grow in the telling; exaggeration and embellishment are characteristic of orally propagated reports. Prophesies are open to broad interpretation and elements that don't fit are ignored - the same kind of attentional biases that keep psychic readers raking in the cash.

Evidence for overnight mud baking would be verifiable film or photographs of the day before and the day after; unlikely to happen, but that's the way it goes. Multiple corroborating contemporary diary entries from eyewitness individuals might give some weight to such claims.

Science today is more objective than it has ever been; you complain because the evidential requirements are too rigorous for your stories and anecdotes.

 

[chad kincham]

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.

Science does NOT use only hard empirical evidence, it also uses inference - and there is an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence from DNA and the anthropic principle that there is a god that exists as first cause and prime mover of the universe, and life in the universe - which is reflected in many statements over decades by secular scientists such as physicists, Astrophysicists, cosmologists, and mathematicians.

Science cannot prove the existence of a god that is personal and can be known such as the Christian god - that requires apologetics- but absolutely logically infers the existence of a creator god, but that fact is denied by anti-theists.

 

[chad kincham]

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.

Science does NOT use only hard empirical evidence, it also uses inference - and there is an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence from DNA and the anthropic principle that a god exists as first cause and prime mover of the universe, and life within the universe - as reflected in many statements over decades from scientists such as physicists, astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists, and mathematicians.

Science cannot prove that the creator god (who exists as prime mover and first cause) is a personal god who can be known, and who interacts with mankind - that requires apologetics - but does absolutely infer the existence of a god.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I guess Chad thinks posting it twice makes it seem less silly - it doesn't.

 

[chad kincham]

there. Personal authority is not determinative in science. Scientists don't get to keep control of their ideas.

He’s an authority, because he’s a renowned physicist, and what he says is absolutely the most common sense interpretation of all the currently known facts.

 

[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).

Visible light is necessary for photosynthesis.

Each photon of infrared light has too low an energy for photosynthesis and is harmful to life.

The intensity of light emitted by a given object depends on its wavelength or frequency. How the intensity changes as a function of frequency is called the spectrum of light. The spectrum of light emitted by a star is determined by its surface temperature, which is, in turn, influenced by the energy generation rate in the stellar core and by the surface area.

The energy generation rate and the surface area are, in turn, determined by many physical constants such as the magnitudes of strong interaction, gravitational interaction, and electromagnetic interaction, and by the electron mass, the proton mass, and the speed of light.

We can divide main-sequence stars into two classes: blue giants and red dwarfs. Blue giants are massive stars, and energy generated in the core of a blue giant is transported by propagation of light through the stellar interior. Because blue giants emit copious ultraviolet light, they are not suitable for supporting life.

Red dwarfs are low-mass stars, and energy generated in the core of a red dwarf is transported mainly by convection. (In a heated pot, energy is transported from the bottom to the top by the convection of water.) Red dwarfs emit mainly infrared light, whose energy is too feeble to support life.

In terms of their characteristics, sun-like stars fall between red dwarfs and blue giants: both convection and radiation play roles in transporting energy in such stars, and they emit most of their energy in the visible band, which supports photosynthesis.

Because most stars happen to be situated near the boundary between the blue-giant regime and the red-dwarf regime, a slight change in the value of one of the above-mentioned physical constants one way or the other would push all stars to become blue giants or to become red dwarfs.

In order to have sun-like stars in the universe which can sustain life, the values of these fundamental constants, and the speed of light, must be fine-tuned.

 

[chad kincham]

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

I have a question for you about photons, and quantum entanglement research:

How do you determine the state of a photon before observation, when it takes observation to determine the state of a photon?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just the speed of light?

Yep. Your list copied from Ross indicated that the speed of light directly affect the luminosity of stars.

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.

Electromagnetic, 300,000 km/s. Not sure what this "fermion" business is. Fermions aren't tied to a particular interaction. Fermions are just particles with half-integer spin. Electrons, neutrinos (both leptons), neutron, protons (both baryons), and quarks are among the particles that are fermions.

There has been some talk about the "quantum foam" of quantized space time might affect the propagation speed of photons, but that doesn't actually change the speed of light.

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.

Ross made a specific (but not detailed) claim that the speed of light changing would impact stellar luminosities (but apparently gave additional information about how that might be the case. Since he listed other constants separately in his list, we must presume that he meant the speed of light by itself.

Excess UV could indeed be detrimental to the kind of life we know of. If Ross could demonstrate that a change in the speed of light would increase UV hazard that would be interesting. The problem on top of that seems to be that the opposite change in the speed of light should *reduce* UV which would be favorable to life. Too bad Ross didn't provide you with more information.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

I wasn't talking about data sets or presuppositions. I was referring to how the professional creationists.

Best way to identify: do they work for an organization or ministry focused on creationism primarily and are they responsible for presenting new "proof" of creation from data or "disproofs" of evolution from the same?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Visible light is necessary for photosynthesis.

On Earth.

Each photon of infrared light has too low an energy for photosynthesis and is harmful to life.

IR absorbing proteins would have been much more useful in a red dwarf system.

Habitability of red dwarf systems - Wikipedia

Personally, this Earth-based life form enjoys absorbing IR photons.

The intensity of light emitted by a given object depends on its wavelength or frequency. How the intensity changes as a function of frequency is called the spectrum of light. The spectrum of light emitted by a star is determined by its surface temperature, which is, in turn, influenced by the energy generation rate in the stellar core and by the surface area.

The energy generation rate and the surface area are, in turn, determined by many physical constants such as the magnitudes of strong interaction, gravitational interaction, and electromagnetic interaction, and by the electron mass, the proton mass, and the speed of light.

We can divide main-sequence stars into two classes: blue giants and red dwarfs. Blue giants are massive stars, and energy generated in the core of a blue giant is transported by propagation of light through the stellar interior. Because blue giants emit copious ultraviolet light, they are not suitable for supporting life.

Red dwarfs are low-mass stars, and energy generated in the core of a red dwarf is transported mainly by convection. (In a heated pot, energy is transported from the bottom to the top by the convection of water.) Red dwarfs emit mainly infrared light, whose energy is too feeble to support life.

In terms of their characteristics, sun-like stars fall between red dwarfs and blue giants: both convection and radiation play roles in transporting energy in such stars, and they emit most of their energy in the visible band, which supports photosynthesis.

Because most stars happen to be situated near the boundary between the blue-giant regime and the red-dwarf regime, a slight change in the value of one of the above-mentioned physical constants one way or the other would push all stars to become blue giants or to become red dwarfs.

A long cut-and-paste of some simple stellar structure followed by a rather large, vague claim about constants.

In order to have sun-like stars in the universe which can sustain life, the values of these fundamental constants, and the speed of light, must be fine-tuned.

And at this point Ross reaches too far. I can see why he left science for profesional creationism. It better suits his skills.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have a question for you about photons, and quantum entanglement research:

How do you determine the state of a photon before observation, when it takes observation to determine the state of a photon?

You prepare the quantum state carefully with a reliable method. (Reliability can be tested independently of entanglement part of the experiment.) This ensures that nearly all of the quantum states are as you planned.

 

[sjastro]

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.

You certainly did slip up; you were caught out contradicting yourself and are now engaging in this blatant attempt at deflection.

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.

And here your deflection doesn’t even make any sense.
There is no evidence of red shifting due to inflation because there is nothing from the inflation era we can measure the redshift of!
The earliest example of redshift is of the CMB which is around 300,000 years after inflation ended while your quantization of redshift involves galaxies which were formed billions of years after that.

You clearly don’t understand the difference between inflation and expansion, or when Doppler shift is relevant.

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.

The argument by repetition fallacy; did you even bother trying to read the link which shows why inflation is supported by mainstream or are you just to going to ignore anything which refutes your opinion based arguments and carry on regardless.

Let’s call this attitude out for what it is.
How does Steinhardt, Penrose, quantization of redshift, or any other anti BB “fact” you have thrown up in this thread supports creationism in particular it requires God to create it and wind-up the universe so it can entropically run down?
It doesn’t and it’s an example of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” principle.

You are engaging in typical creationist tactics and it is disingenuous to use examples which are just as anti-creationism as the BBT you are trying to debunk.

 

[Hans Blaster]

He’s an authority, because he’s a renowned physicist, and what he says is absolutely the most common sense interpretation of all the currently known facts.

As sjastro has pointed out -- inflation fits the data very well, so in addition to his "authority" being irrelevant in science, the data seems to be against him.

 

[sjastro]

He’s an authority, because he’s a renowned physicist, and what he says is absolutely the most common sense interpretation of all the currently known facts.

An illogical statement.
It is the model Steinhardt now uses as a replacement for inflation which is the interpretation not the criticism of inflation itself.
Steinhardt now believes in a cyclic universe model where branes in higher dimensions collide with each other resulting in a Big Crunch followed by a rebounding Big Bang.
This is as much a Godless explanation of the universe as BBT and does not support creationism one iota.

 

[sjastro]

There is no evidence of red shifting due to inflation because there is nothing from the inflation era we can measure the redshift of!
The earliest example of redshift is of the CMB which is around 300,000 years after inflation ended while your quantization of redshift involves galaxies which were formed billions of years after that.

I have been fortunate to establish a contact at LIGO, Christopher Berry.
One of our discussions involved measuring the redshift of gravitational waves which is now possible and is definitely not a Doppler shift.
Gravitational waves can penetrate the CMB so in theory a "gravitational wave telescope" should be able see beyond the CMB which is opaque to our current photon collecting telescopes.

One of the predictions for inflation is the creation of low frequency primordial gravitational waves which would leave a particular type of polarization (B-mode) on the CMB.

​

As mentioned in the inflation link there was a false positive in the BICEP2 experiment which was an embarrassing episode for mainstream science and cause for celebration for cranks, anti and pseudoscience supporters and probably many a creationist as well.

 

[chad kincham]

Yep. Your list copied from Ross indicated that the speed of light directly affect the luminosity of stars.



Electromagnetic, 300,000 km/s. Not sure what this "fermion" business is. Fermions aren't tied to a particular interaction. Fermions are just particles with half-integer spin. Electrons, neutrinos (both leptons), neutron, protons (both baryons), and quarks are among the particles that are fermions.

There has been some talk about the "quantum foam" of quantized space time might affect the propagation speed of photons, but that doesn't actually change the speed of light.



Ross made a specific (but not detailed) claim that the speed of light changing would impact stellar luminosities (but apparently gave additional information about how that might be the case. Since he listed other constants separately in his list, we must presume that he meant the speed of light by itself.

Excess UV could indeed be detrimental to the kind of life we know of. If Ross could demonstrate that a change in the speed of light would increase UV hazard that would be interesting. The problem on top of that seems to be that the opposite change in the speed of light should *reduce* UV which would be favorable to life. Too bad Ross didn't provide you with more information.

Faster or sLower both would produce stars not conducive to life.

I did a little experiment- the copy and paste you criticized is from this guy:

Taeil Bai

• Senior Research Scientist: Center for Space Science and Astrophysics, Wilcox Solar Observatory, Stanford University
• Associate Investigator, Solar Oscillations Investigation (SOI)

You prepare the quantum state carefully with a reliable method. (Reliability can be tested independently of entanglement part of the experiment.) This ensures that nearly all of the quantum states are as you planned.

Vague, non-answer.

 

[Zoii]

Science does NOT use only hard empirical evidence, it also uses inference

Yes it DOES. If matters are only inferred then it will remain an unproven theory. That's the scientific process. It must be evidentiary, replicable.

there is an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence from DNA and the anthropic principle that a god exists

Yeah - look as soon as you threw in the word "circumstantial" you're really admitting to zero evidence for the existence of God. Coincidence or circumstantial evidence is not fact. I hear this a lot and it's such nonsense - I prayed to God I'd do well in my exam - and I did. So God must have done it for me - Proof.

Science cannot prove that the creator god

Yes, that was my point. God is not something you will prove. There's no proof and no evidentiary process you can use for your case.