A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[stevevw]

Get back to us when you have a testable one. And I'm still waiting on your tested, well established model of universe formation which shows that our current configuration is as unlikely as you're guessing it is. Looks like you have some work to do - not sure which is the top priority, but I'm not really holding my breath on either.

Yeah its hard work. Luckily in the meantime we can refer to the experts to find a possible hypothesis for how the universe came into existence. I like the way this article puts the argument for the universe having a beginning and therefore purpose.

According to the theory of general relativity the universe had to have a beginning. Scientists had deducted that the universe was expanding. This expansion was through space time itself. So the reversal of this was to end at a single point a singularity. So at this point time, space, matter and energy were non existent. So it was realized that the universe was not eternal and had a beginning hence the "Big Bang Theory". So this suggests the universe originates ex nihilo from that singularity. This would mean there is no earlier space-time point and that nothing existed prior to the singularity.

The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe
On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity. Now such a conclusion is profoundly disturbing for anyone who ponders it. For the question cannot be suppressed: Why does the universe exist rather than nothing? In light of the universe's origin ex nihilo, one can no longer dismiss this question with a shrug and a slogan, "The universe is just there and that's all." For the universe is not "just there;" rather it came into being.

Conclusion
We can summarize our argument as follows:
1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
2. Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
4. The universe began to exist.
From (2) and (4) it follows that
5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.
From (1) and (5) it follows further that
6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence.
From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that
7. Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.

And this, as Thomas Aquinas laconically remarked,67 is what everybody means by God.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-...d-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz3xei6LSTV

Kalam cosmological argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

 

[KCfromNC]

Yeah its hard work. Luckily in the meantime we can refer to the experts

William Lane Craig isn't an expert in the field of cosmology. Isn't he the guy who says that genocide is fine as long as god tells you so?

 

[stevevw]

William Lane Craig isn't an expert in the field of cosmology. Isn't he the guy who says that genocide is fine as long as god tells you so?

It depends what sort of expert you want to use. I would say if we are trying to devise a hypothesis for the beginning of existence being created by God then I think he is a pretty good expert to do so. Somehow I dont think an astrophysicist or physicist is going to be into all that. All I know is he has degrees in philosophy and theology so he would know about religious matters. But what he is suggesting is not really his original ideas. His basic ideas are based on the Kalam cosmological argument. The Kalam Cosmological Argument; is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God rooted in the Ilm al-Kalam heritage in medieval Islamic scholasticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

As far as his views on genocide I am not sure and I dont think they have much to do with the beginnings of the universe. I checked into this and this is something to do with debates about the stories in the old testament and how God used His judgements on certain people. I think he is mainly saying that if he were there and God had asked him to do what say Moses was confronted with that he would do the same. He is not advocating genocide in the way we understand it. This was a specific judgement of a people who were punished for their sins. But this is another debate and I dont want to side tracked.

 

[KCfromNC]

It depends what sort of expert you want to use.

Based on how well science has done answering questions about the natural world, I'd prefer a scientist who has gained the consensus of his peers in the field.

I would say if we are trying to devise a hypothesis for the beginning of existence being created by God then

... we are jumping to conclusions. How about objectively evaluating the evidence rather than working backwards from a preconceived answer?

 

[Reasoning]

Conclusion
We can summarize our argument as follows:
1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.

For this we have to assume premise one however, and that might be false. It is plausible (from calculations in theoretical physics) that the universe came into its existence from nothing; no space, not time, no energy, no laws of physics. If there was no time before the universe, 'before' would simply not apply.

This is all very theoretical en not conclusive, but we might want to be cautious with using our common sense in these matters.

 

[stevevw]

Based on how well science has done answering questions about the natural world, I'd prefer a scientist who has gained the consensus of his peers in the field.

As we know science isn't always right about things like this. They cant test and verify their hypothesis on how the universe began. Other ideas like the nothingness before the big bang happened to explain how something can come from nothing that Lawrence Krausse proposes is just fantasy. Science will never be able to find a naturalistic explanation on how he universe came from nothing.
Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ain-why-theres-something-rather-than-nothing/

... we are jumping to conclusions. How about objectively evaluating the evidence rather than working backwards from a preconceived answer?

If you really objectively assess the evidence then to make something out of nothing you have to come to these conclusions. If the universe had a beginning then that suggests a purpose. If it had a purpose then that suggests something that understands purpose and not a purposeless, random and chance occurrence. That is the most plausible conclusion we can come to. If anything its some of the scientists who are trying to make things fit into their world view. Turning nothing into something and saying its really nothing is appealing to just as much of a unreal idea as anything.

 

[Reasoning]

As we know science isn't always right about things like this. They cant test and verify their hypothesis on how the universe began. Other ideas like the nothingness before the big bang happened to explain how something can come from nothing that Lawrence Krausse proposes is just fantasy. Science will never be able to find a naturalistic explanation on how he universe came from nothing.
Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ain-why-theres-something-rather-than-nothing/
If you really objectively assess the evidence then to make something out of nothing you have to come to these conclusions. If the universe had a beginning then that suggests a purpose. If it had a purpose then that suggests something that understands purpose and not a purposeless, random and chance occurrence. That is the most plausible conclusion we can come to. If anything its some of the scientists who are trying to make things fit into their world view. Turning nothing into something and saying its really nothing is appealing to just as much of a unreal idea as anything.

You do have to be careful though, that we are talking about a topic where our common sense might simply not apply. That science will never be able to find an explanation to something is ridiculous, why would you think that? And if we don't try, we will never know.

Krauss is not claiming that his theory is the truth, but that it is plausible for a universe to come from nothing (and that is a nothing as described in physics, no time, no space, no matter, no energy, no laws of physics; the complete absence of something). He runs calculations that indicate this possibility. The universe might not have had a before, because time could not have existed, and therefore there is no 'before'. This is not just fantasy, it is all plausible (but not proven, no) by calculations and experiment in theoretical physics. And there is no question it is more plausible than a creator (for which there is not a shred of evidence)

The story that the universe should have a purpose as in 'human purpose', something with meaning is just silly. You can ask, what causes mountains? But what is the purpose of mountains? That question simply does not apply.

 

[stevevw]

For this we have to assume premise one however, and that might be false. It is plausible (from calculations in theoretical physics) that the universe came into its existence from nothing; no space, not time, no energy, no laws of physics. If there was no time before the universe, 'before' would simply not apply

So what is the plausible situation that theoretical physics suggests in how the universe began. The quantum fluctuations where virtual particles pop in and out of existence. The nothingness thats is really something yet still nothing. Yet when we look into what that nothingness is it is really something. Where did the laws of quantum mechanics themselves come from. These scientific theories have nothing to say about where the physics came from. They just start at a point where there is something in the first place to explain their theories. Its a bit like evolution. They can start at a point of there being a living thing to make the theory. Then make large jumps to fill in the rest and before you know it we have a theory that is suppose to be the best testable theory ever. The problem is scientists can come up with other conclusions based on the same evidence. So nothing is proven and many things are possible.

The Big Bang Paradoxes
The group of theories that collectively make up the Standard Model of the Big Bang have become generally accepted by the cosmological community even though they contain many paradoxical and contradictory conclusions as well as several gross violations of the most well established laws of physics.
http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/054-The-Big-Bang-Paradoxes.html

This is all very theoretical en not conclusive, but we might want to be cautious with using our common sense in these matters.

Yes I agree, but this can be applied to the scientific theories that have been presented about the universe and its beginning. All I am really saying is why cant a hypothesis of design how everything began be one of the ideas to be considered and not rejected out of hand because it is religion. It can have some good ideas that can explain things just as well. Neither science or supernatural ideas have been verified so what is the difference. Many scientific ideas lack common sense as well. They appeal to almost to the supernatural and have not been verified. They tell us nothing about how things came to be or why. They look at what the evidence is and then build a theory around that to suit.

 

[Reasoning]

So what is the plausible situation that theoretical physics suggests in how the universe began. The quantum fluctuations where virtual particles pop in and out of existence. The nothingness thats is really something yet still nothing. Yet when we look into what that nothingness is it is really something. Where did the laws of quantum mechanics themselves come from. These scientific theories have nothing to say about where the physics came from. They just start at a point where there is something in the first place to explain their theories. Its a bit like evolution. They can start at a point of there being a living thing to make the theory. Then make large jumps to fill in the rest and before you know it we have a theory that is suppose to be the best testable theory ever. The problem is scientists can come up with other conclusions based on the same evidence. So nothing is proven and many things are possible.

The Big Bang Paradoxes
The group of theories that collectively make up the Standard Model of the Big Bang have become generally accepted by the cosmological community even though they contain many paradoxical and contradictory conclusions as well as several gross violations of the most well established laws of physics.
http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/054-The-Big-Bang-Paradoxes.html

Yes I agree, but this can be applied to the scientific theories that have been presented about the universe and its beginning. All I am really saying is why cant a hypothesis of design how everything began be one of the ideas to be considered and not rejected out of hand because it is religion. It can have some good ideas that can explain things just as well. Neither science or supernatural ideas have been verified so what is the difference. Many scientific ideas lack common sense as well. They appeal to almost to the supernatural and have not been verified. They tell us nothing about how things came to be or why. They look at what the evidence is and then build a theory around that to suit.

I agree it all sounds a little crazy. I am not a theoretical physicist myself, but I have looked into the matter pretty good (for as far that is possible). That is one of the issues with it anyway, there is almost no way to avoid using arguments of authority (something I very much oppose to in principle) because the subject is just too complicated to grasp. The alternative is not discussing it all together, which is worse I think. Plus I do think Krauss his work makes sense when you look at it, and I do trust him and his colleagues on at least trying their best.

Quantum mechanics provide an at least theoretical explanation of how something can come from nothing, but for the sake of readability let's not go into this too far (there are some nice youtube videos of Krauss explaining this if you want). Again, this is not the absolute truth at all, but it is a start, much like Darwin had a start with this theory 150 years ago. It is certainly the best we can do at his point, and will most likely improve. The origin of life is not known yet, but that probably came from chemistry, and I am confident that we will figure that out one day too.

The hypothesis of design is just not plausible, and certainly less plausible than Krauss his theory, even though it sounds more logical. Logical feeling does not necessarily apply in this field. The 'why' might not be a valid question, since it implies a purpose that might not be there. You can ask, 'what is the cause of this', but 'why' is silly sometimes. Why, as in purpose, are there mountains?

It is a very complicated thing to grasp. But we do have to be very careful to not fall for 'if we cannot explain A, the answer is B'.

 

[stevevw]

I agree it all sounds a little crazy. I am not a theoretical physicist myself, but I have looked into the matter pretty good (for as far that is possible). That is one of the issues with it anyway, there is almost no way to avoid using arguments of authority (something I very much oppose to in principle) because the subject is just too complicated to grasp. The alternative is not discussing it all together, which is worse I think. Plus I do think Krauss his work makes sense when you look at it, and I do trust him and his colleagues on at least trying their best.

Quantum mechanics provide an at least theoretical explanation of how something can come from nothing, but for the sake of readability let's not go into this too far (there are some nice youtube videos of Krauss explaining this if you want). Again, this is not the absolute truth at all, but it is a start, much like Darwin had a start with this theory 150 years ago. It is certainly the best we can do at his point, and will most likely improve. The origin of life is not known yet, but that probably came from chemistry, and I am confident that we will figure that out one day too.

The hypothesis of design is just not plausible, and certainly less plausible than Krauss his theory, even though it sounds more logical. Logical feeling does not necessarily apply in this field. The 'why' might not be a valid question, since it implies a purpose that might not be there. You can ask, 'what is the cause of this', but 'why' is silly sometimes. Why, as in purpose, are there mountains?

It is a very complicated thing to grasp. But we do have to be very careful to not fall for 'if we cannot explain A, the answer is B'.

I like what Professor John Lennox says about using scientific calculations for explaining how things work. They are just explanations and calculations. But calculations are just that. They dont have any creative ability. They just try to explain what is happening. That seems to be what scientists try to do. Look at what is happening, the evidence and try to place a natural explanation on it. But we dont really know in the scheme of things what these things represent. We have a theory of Gravity and relativity and they explain things nicely.

But in the greater scheme of things what is gravity and how did it come about. That goes for all the laws of physics, what we see in the universe, how it is expanding at an ever increasing rate, dark energy and dark matter. It seems that scientists apply new ideas that are not really verified to explain what they see. But it just adds more complication to things and its like they make up new ideas to address things naturally. What if it just cannot be explained naturally. When you step back and look at things its pretty amazing.

I'm glad you mentioned theoretical science because a lot of it is. The thing is when someone uses that same theoretical approach for ideas that dont fit into what the consensus say its immediately rejected. things such as our conscience having some influence on reality. That a part of us may exist outside the material world. Theoretically this seems to be what the evidence points to. I just think that we shouldn't restrict the ideas as to how the universe began, how life began. There may be an answer beyond the physical realm that science should consider as well.

There are new branches of science that are accommodating this and should be considered. The point is whether its life or existence of the universe and all matter there had to be a starting point. Something from nothing. That in itself makes us have to be open to consider things beyond the material world. No matter what idea you use to try and explain this we will have to get back to this point. I dont think science has all these answers and never will. Even some scientists are asking to lessen the criteria for falsification of some of their ideas because it is impossible to verify them.

 

[stevevw]

You do have to be careful though, that we are talking about a topic where our common sense might simply not apply. That science will never be able to find an explanation to something is ridiculous, why would you think that? And if we don't try, we will never know

Well the thing is some of the ideas or should I say all of the ideas are beyond the realm of them being able to be verified. They say the big bang has good support. yet other scientists can question this and come up with alternative ideas that also fit. Things like multiverses, hologram worlds, string theory can never be verified as they are beyond out world. So I am not sure we can ever verify these things simply because they are beyond verification in the true sense of the word.

Krauss is not claiming that his theory is the truth, but that it is plausible for a universe to come from nothing (and that is a nothing as described in physics, no time, no space, no matter, no energy, no laws of physics; the complete absence of something). He runs calculations that indicate this possibility. The universe might not have had a before, because time could not have existed, and therefore there is no 'before'. This is not just fantasy, it is all plausible (but not proven, no) by calculations and experiment in theoretical physics. And there is no question it is more plausible than a creator (for which there is not a shred of evidence)

That same theoretical physics also says our minds can create reality. That the universe is also conscious. So as we can see theoretically there are a few different ideas out there that we can appeal to. But as far as I understand the idea that Krauss is proposing does need something. It isn't a true nothing (ex nihilo). Even quantum fluctuations need energy, physical laws and fields which can change the way they act to create virtual particles. Krauss doesn't explain where the quantum fields come from or why they act in certain ways to create this special nothing. Its interesting that Mr Dawkins joyously claims that the last trump card for creation is shriveled up with Lawrence Krauss's idea of nothing. It seems there is a bit more invested in this than science.

The story that the universe should have a purpose as in 'human purpose', something with meaning is just silly. You can ask, what causes mountains? But what is the purpose of mountains? That question simply does not apply.

I think when it comes to the beginning of everything the question is more relevant. Mountains and all that are part of things after existence came about. It is natural for us to ask the question why there is something rather than nothing.
http://www.templeton.org/purpose/pdfs/bq_universe.pdf

 

[Reasoning]

Well the thing is some of the ideas or should I say all of the ideas are beyond the realm of them being able to be verified. They say the big bang has good support. yet other scientists can question this and come up with alternative ideas that also fit. Things like multiverses, hologram worlds, string theory can never be verified as they are beyond out world. So I am not sure we can ever verify these things simply because they are beyond verification in the true sense of the word.

That same theoretical physics also says our minds can create reality. That the universe is also conscious. So as we can see theoretically there are a few different ideas out there that we can appeal to. But as far as I understand the idea that Krauss is proposing does need something. It isn't a true nothing (ex nihilo). Even quantum fluctuations need energy, physical laws and fields which can change the way they act to create virtual particles. Krauss doesn't explain where the quantum fields come from or why they act in certain ways to create this special nothing. Its interesting that Mr Dawkins joyously claims that the last trump card for creation is shriveled up with Lawrence Krauss's idea of nothing. It seems there is a bit more invested in this than science.

I think when it comes to the beginning of everything the question is more relevant. Mountains and all that are part of things after existence came about. It is natural for us to ask the question why there is something rather than nothing.
http://www.templeton.org/purpose/pdfs/bq_universe.pdf

I agree that it is still abstract, but theoretical physics is based on calculations that do actually make sense. That is different from the people claiming consciousness beyond the brain. There have been some experiments in quantum physics that gave the idea of this consciousness, but those claims have turned out to be premature and based on wrong interpretations.

Therefore, Krauss' theory is definitely not just a nice hypothesis. This is sustained by observation of the universe, and by running calculations that all seem to work out until now. It is plausible, but we need a lot more effort and research before anything conclusive can be said of course. But for now, it is more likely than any other theory, especially those that involve a creator. I have to agree with you that banning the idea of a creator a priori is not good for any discipline of science, but that is not what happens. For example, Krauss did not come up with this idea over this morning tea, and then ran calculations that support it. No, he was driven to that theory by the calculations he ran (we have to trust him on that of course, but no indication suggests otherwise). In the same way, there is no evidence of anything that points to a creator, and that's why it is not a real option at this moment for scientist.

I'm currently reading Krauss' book 'a universe from nothing', and the notion of nothing has been part of the debate a lot. I agree that it might be different form the ex nihilo philosophical definition of nothing. But what Krauss is talking about, is still no space, no time, no matter, no energy an no laws of physics. There will be nothing you would be able to measure, a complete absence of something. I came to understand that in physics, we might need to change the idea of some things in our common sense if we want to come up with measurable definitions. Therefore, nothing = the absence of something, and that is exactly what Krauss means. The philosophical nothing is in this case irrelevant. It's a very interesting theory, and I hope we will hear much more from it in the future.

Last, about the why or purpose question. I do not think that it matters if we are talking about something after or before the big bang. The notion of why or purpose is just sometimes not applicable, because it assumes a purpose which there might not be. The question 'What is the purpose of mountains' is equally silly as 'What is the purpose of the universe' or 'What is the purpose of life'. Mountains 'are, the universe 'is' and life 'is'. There is no purpose, or at the very least, there is no indication for purpose. That those questions are natural for us to ask, I agree. It took me some time to actually understand that it just might not be applicable to ask in situations like those where we talk about the origin of the universe. The fact that questions are natural to ask, does not mean they are also valid or useful in terms of understanding the world. Of course, I am not talking about these in a philosophical perspective.

I appreciate your elaborate and well structured arguments

 

[stevevw]

I agree that it is still abstract, but theoretical physics is based on calculations that do actually make sense. That is different from the people claiming consciousness beyond the brain. There have been some experiments in quantum physics that gave the idea of this consciousness, but those claims have turned out to be premature and based on wrong interpretations.

Therefore, Krauss' theory is definitely not just a nice hypothesis. This is sustained by observation of the universe, and by running calculations that all seem to work out until now. It is plausible, but we need a lot more effort and research before anything conclusive can be said of course. But for now, it is more likely than any other theory, especially those that involve a creator. I have to agree with you that banning the idea of a creator a priori is not good for any discipline of science, but that is not what happens. For example, Krauss did not come up with this idea over this morning tea, and then ran calculations that support it. No, he was driven to that theory by the calculations he ran (we have to trust him on that of course, but no indication suggests otherwise). In the same way, there is no evidence of anything that points to a creator, and that's why it is not a real option at this moment for scientist.

I'm currently reading Krauss' book 'a universe from nothing', and the notion of nothing has been part of the debate a lot. I agree that it might be different form the ex nihilo philosophical definition of nothing. But what Krauss is talking about, is still no space, no time, no matter, no energy an no laws of physics. There will be nothing you would be able to measure, a complete absence of something. I came to understand that in physics, we might need to change the idea of some things in our common sense if we want to come up with measurable definitions. Therefore, nothing = the absence of something, and that is exactly what Krauss means. The philosophical nothing is in this case irrelevant. It's a very interesting theory, and I hope we will hear much more from it in the future.

Last, about the why or purpose question. I do not think that it matters if we are talking about something after or before the big bang. The notion of why or purpose is just sometimes not applicable, because it assumes a purpose which there might not be. The question 'What is the purpose of mountains' is equally silly as 'What is the purpose of the universe' or 'What is the purpose of life'. Mountains 'are, the universe 'is' and life 'is'. There is no purpose, or at the very least, there is no indication for purpose. That those questions are natural for us to ask, I agree. It took me some time to actually understand that it just might not be applicable to ask in situations like those where we talk about the origin of the universe. The fact that questions are natural to ask, does not mean they are also valid or useful in terms of understanding the world. Of course, I am not talking about these in a philosophical perspective.

I appreciate your elaborate and well structured arguments

Thanks and I appreciate your understanding and the way you go about debating.

 

[KCfromNC]

As we know science isn't always right about things like this.

It has a better track record than any other approach we've tried. That's why you're using it to try and prop up your religion here.

If the universe had a beginning then that suggests a purpose.

How?

 

[stevevw]

I agree that it is still abstract, but theoretical physics is based on calculations that do actually make sense. That is different from the people claiming consciousness beyond the brain. There have been some experiments in quantum physics that gave the idea of this consciousness, but those claims have turned out to be premature and based on wrong interpretations.

Therefore, Krauss' theory is definitely not just a nice hypothesis. This is sustained by observation of the universe, and by running calculations that all seem to work out until now. It is plausible, but we need a lot more effort and research before anything conclusive can be said of course. But for now, it is more likely than any other theory, especially those that involve a creator. I have to agree with you that banning the idea of a creator a priori is not good for any discipline of science, but that is not what happens. For example, Krauss did not come up with this idea over this morning tea, and then ran calculations that support it. No, he was driven to that theory by the calculations he ran (we have to trust him on that of course, but no indication suggests otherwise). In the same way, there is no evidence of anything that points to a creator, and that's why it is not a real option at this moment for scientist.

I'm currently reading Krauss' book 'a universe from nothing', and the notion of nothing has been part of the debate a lot. I agree that it might be different form the ex nihilo philosophical definition of nothing. But what Krauss is talking about, is still no space, no time, no matter, no energy an no laws of physics. There will be nothing you would be able to measure, a complete absence of something. I came to understand that in physics, we might need to change the idea of some things in our common sense if we want to come up with measurable definitions. Therefore, nothing = the absence of something, and that is exactly what Krauss means. The philosophical nothing is in this case irrelevant. It's a very interesting theory, and I hope we will hear much more from it in the future.

Last, about the why or purpose question. I do not think that it matters if we are talking about something after or before the big bang. The notion of why or purpose is just sometimes not applicable, because it assumes a purpose which there might not be. The question 'What is the purpose of mountains' is equally silly as 'What is the purpose of the universe' or 'What is the purpose of life'. Mountains 'are, the universe 'is' and life 'is'. There is no purpose, or at the very least, there is no indication for purpose. That those questions are natural for us to ask, I agree. It took me some time to actually understand that it just might not be applicable to ask in situations like those where we talk about the origin of the universe. The fact that questions are natural to ask, does not mean they are also valid or useful in terms of understanding the world. Of course, I am not talking about these in a philosophical perspective.

I appreciate your elaborate and well structured arguments

I'm not sure that theoretical physics calculations pan out to make sense. I often think that a scientists will look at a problem and then look for calculations that will fit. Rather than make some predictions with the classifications and see if there is any evidence for that. Such as with multiverses. They are sort of a reactions against the fine tuned universe. Some of the ideas like string theory just keep adding more dimensions so that they can accommodate more and more of what is being found. Like its a theory of everything it ends up being able to fit almost any difficult to explain things that we see.

But as I posted before the big bang idea doesn't really fit the calculations and it has many holes in it especially down at the quantum level. This is the same for several ideas that science has come up with which they turn to as accepted and almost proven theories. Its like scientists are looking at whats going on and making calculations about something they dont really understand in the big picture. So though these calculation may add up in the limited view, those calculations may be wrong in a bigger picture sense. Or should we say in a smaller picture of things such as in the quantum world. Those calculations dont really explain how things happened and what caused them.

Yet if we compare this to other quantum hypothesis and ideas like that our conscience can have a say in reality there is just as much support in an indirect way as anything else proposed. That is why I think the ideas of reality being connected to our consciousness makes some sense as it can accommodate a bigger picture which may be related to perception.
The Big Bang Paradoxes
The group of theories that collectively make up the Standard Model of the Big Bang have become generally accepted by the cosmological community even though they contain many paradoxical and contradictory conclusions as well as several gross violations of the most well established laws of physics.
http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/054-The-Big-Bang-Paradoxes.html
Concept The mental Universe
The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436029a.html
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/mentaluniverse.pdf
Universe Grows Like a Giant Brain
http://www.livescience.com/25027-universe-grows-like-brain.html
Reality doesn't exist until you look at it, pioneering quantum physics experiment finds
http://www.physnews.com/physics-news/cluster1241103267/

 

[stevevw]

It has a better track record than any other approach we've tried. That's why you're using it to try and prop up your religion here.

I'm not saying the methods used are wrong and can't verify things. I am saying that sometimes the scientists behind the experiments may have pre existing views as to what the evidence represents and what the outcomes of those calculations mean. How they use that information and knowledge.

How?

If the universe had a beginning then that suggests a designer. If the universe is fined tuned for life then that is the purpose.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Reasoning]

I'm not sure that theoretical physics calculations pan out to make sense. I often think that a scientists will look at a problem and then look for calculations that will fit. Rather than make some predictions with the classifications and see if there is any evidence for that. Such as with multiverses. They are sort of a reactions against the fine tuned universe. Some of the ideas like string theory just keep adding more dimensions so that they can accommodate more and more of what is being found. Like its a theory of everything it ends up being able to fit almost any difficult to explain things that we see.

But as I posted before the big bang idea doesn't really fit the calculations and it has many holes in it especially down at the quantum level. This is the same for several ideas that science has come up with which they turn to as accepted and almost proven theories. Its like scientists are looking at whats going on and making calculations about something they dont really understand in the big picture. So though these calculation may add up in the limited view, those calculations may be wrong in a bigger picture sense. Or should we say in a smaller picture of things such as in the quantum world. Those calculations dont really explain how things happened and what caused them.

Yet if we compare this to other quantum hypothesis and ideas like that our conscience can have a say in reality there is just as much support in an indirect way as anything else proposed. That is why I think the ideas of reality being connected to our consciousness makes some sense as it can accommodate a bigger picture which may be related to perception.
The Big Bang Paradoxes
The group of theories that collectively make up the Standard Model of the Big Bang have become generally accepted by the cosmological community even though they contain many paradoxical and contradictory conclusions as well as several gross violations of the most well established laws of physics.
http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/054-The-Big-Bang-Paradoxes.html
Concept The mental Universe
The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436029a.html
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/mentaluniverse.pdf
Universe Grows Like a Giant Brain
http://www.livescience.com/25027-universe-grows-like-brain.html
Reality doesn't exist until you look at it, pioneering quantum physics experiment finds
http://www.physnews.com/physics-news/cluster1241103267/

I do actually completely agree with you that it would be bad practice to have a theory first, and then try to find evidence for confirming it. Scientists in principle don't do this, they test, experiment, calculate and then are driven to a most likely theory at that moment. That includes allowing seemingly illogical things like multiverses and M-theory into the mix sometimes, to come up with plausible ideas. And that what it is; plausibles, maybes, mights, with the prospect of becoming more solid as we discover more. But certainly, it is the best we've got for now.

I have not come across indications that scientists make up their mind before evidence presents itself. That would be undermining the very foundation of science, and I would be very opposed to it. The system of peer-reviewing, and the fact that many people are trying to disprove conclusions all the time (it is the best way to become famous), is a good mechanism to prevent this from happening in most cases I think.

There is one thing I do not get. If you are opposed to people making up their minds first, and then looking for evidence (as anyone should be), then the creation theory is the very definition of that what should be avoided. We are by no means driven to that theory in observation, it was there all along and it came from ancient scripture, and all that people have been trying to do is to find evidence that supports it after with the theory know a priori. Even if you suspect this type of researching happening with big-bang researchers, it is evidently the case with creationists, isn't it?

 

[stevevw]

I do actually completely agree with you that it would be bad practice to have a theory first, and then try to find evidence for confirming it. Scientists in principle don't do this, they test, experiment, calculate and then are driven to a most likely theory at that moment. That includes allowing seemingly illogical things like multiverses and M-theory into the mix sometimes, to come up with plausible ideas. And that what it is; plausibles, maybes, mights, with the prospect of becoming more solid as we discover more. But certainly, it is the best we've got for now.

I have not come across indications that scientists make up their mind before evidence presents itself. That would be undermining the very foundation of science, and I would be very opposed to it. The system of peer-reviewing, and the fact that many people are trying to disprove conclusions all the time (it is the best way to become famous), is a good mechanism to prevent this from happening in most cases I think.

There is one thing I do not get. If you are opposed to people making up their minds first, and then looking for evidence (as anyone should be), then the creation theory is the very definition of that what should be avoided. We are by no means driven to that theory in observation, it was there all along and it came from ancient scripture, and all that people have been trying to do is to find evidence that supports it after with the theory know a priori. Even if you suspect this type of researching happening with big-bang researchers, it is evidently the case with creationists, isn't it?

I agree that belief is not in the same way as how science does things. Those who believe in God have never really made claims that what they believe is scientifically verified. At least when it comes to basic beliefs in Gods creation ect. I think science is the way for us to understand what is happening in nature and life and that can lead us to a better understanding of Gods creation. But it doesn't have all the answers. I believe there is a intuitive knowledge within us that knows about Gods creation and this is a driving force for many.

As science has progressed it has opens up the amazing worlds of genetics, astrophysics and general physics and we are beginning to see things that make many people wonder how a natural process could create such things. A naturalistic explanation just doesn't seem to have the answer. As I have said before it seems that science tries to explain what they see with a world view but it doesn't really have any explanation as to how things came into being. It could be that they are just describing Gods creation with a naturalistic explanation. I think there is room for both science and religion and one without the other wont give the complete picture.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It has a better track record than any other approach we've tried. That's why you're using it to try and prop up your religion here.

Indeed... there's a reason people don't get smallpox anymore... just sayin'

How?

I've been told that God has no beginning... what does that say about His purpose?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I agree that belief is not in the same way as how science does things. Those who believe in God have never really made claims that what they believe is scientifically verified. At least when it comes to basic beliefs in Gods creation ect. I think science is the way for us to understand what is happening in nature and life and that can lead us to a better understanding of Gods creation.

And that would be all well and good, except when those who believe in God challenge beliefs which are scientifically verified...

But it doesn't have all the answers.

Nor was it ever meant to. Science is not a source of answers, it is a process for finding answers.

A naturalistic explanation just doesn't seem to have the answer.

A hundred years ago, there were plenty of things that a naturalistic explanation didn't seem to have the answer for.

That list was a lot smaller than it was 500 years ago, and much smaller than it was 1,000 years ago.

Who can say how small the list will be 100 years from now? 500 years? 1,000 years?

The process works; no reason to quit now.

As I have said before it seems that science tries to explain what they see with a world view but it doesn't really have any explanation as to how things came into being. It could be that they are just describing Gods creation with a naturalistic explanation. I think there is room for both science and religion and one without the other wont give the complete picture.

They had best work together, becaise if you're asking one to step aside for the other, people are going to prefer the one that gets results.

As Joseph Campbell once said, when the priest says faith can move mountains, nobody believes him. When the scientist says he can level a mountain, nobody doubts him.