A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[stevevw]

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

What do you mean by beliefs that have been scientifically verified. Do you mean scientific ideas.

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

The problem is many make their own conclusions out of those answers or explanation that will support their world view on things.

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.

The difference is is that the answers that they were looking for were all within our own world and reality. Now it seems scientists are coming to a point where they have to step outside that and appeal to things beyond what is testable.

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

I think they both get results or answers. Just not the same ones. But both are just as important as each other. It was the early believing pioneering scientists who led the way in science. They had a need to discover Gods creation in the nature around them.

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.

Well it seems full circle now as science itself is looking at the mind, and belief as a way to achieve certain things where science hasn't been able to. Faith or belief is a lot more powerful that people realize.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What do you mean by beliefs that have been scientifically verified. Do you mean scientific ideas.

I was thinking back to Galileo... man, did he have a scientific "idea," which stuck in the church's craw...

The problem is many make their own conclusions out of those answers or explanation that will support their world view on things.

True -- the scientific process only works free of political, social, or religious ideology... it is a process for finding answers, but you have to be willing to go wherever the process leads.

The difference is is that the answers that they were looking for were all within our own world and reality. Now it seems scientists are coming to a point where they have to step outside that and appeal to things beyond what is testable.

Still within out own world and reality... where is it not?

I think they both get results or answers. Just not the same ones. But both are just as important as each other. It was the early believing pioneering scientists who led the way in science. They had a need to discover Gods creation in the nature around them.

And what many of them found was not what their priests and pastors told them was true... because the priests were looking in a book, and the scientists were looking at the process.

Well it seems full circle now as science itself is looking at the mind, and belief as a way to achieve certain things where science hasn't been able to. Faith or belief is a lot more powerful that people realize.

I'm sure it seems that way to you, but last I checked, that mountain still isn't going anywhere without a scientist.

 

[stevevw]

I was thinking back to Galileo... man, did he have a scientific "idea," which stuck in the church's craw...

Yet he was a christian who believed that "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."

True -- the scientific process only works free of political, social, or religious ideology... it is a process for finding answers, but you have to be willing to go wherever the process leads.

I agree

Still within out own world and reality... where is it not?

Things like multiverses, hologram worlds, the Ekpyrotic Universe, Time Travel, the idea of a fake universe and we live in a sort of video game simulation, and string theory.
A first: String theory predicts an experimental result
https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/stringTheory.asp
Is Our Universe a Fake?
http://www.space.com/30124-is-our-universe-a-fake.html
Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram
http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

And what many of them found was not what their priests and pastors told them was true... because the priests were looking in a book, and the scientists were looking at the process.

Many scientists believed that the science would prove God. That what they sen in the universe and nature was revealing God and His creation.

I'm sure it seems that way to you, but last I checked, that mountain still isn't going anywhere without a scientist.

Modern science is looking into the effects of belief and how it can have an effect on things like health. Things such as mind over matter, the observer effect, the placebo effect ect are becoming more prominent in scientific research. These things are showing results where traditional science couldn't. So even though the idea of moving mountains may have been an exaggeration it may have some truth in the idea that faith/belief can achieve things that other methods can't.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yet he was a christian who believed that "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."

Indeed -- and had the church not strayed from its original purpose to become a center for political and social power, they wouldn't have seen his idea as a threat.

I agree

Things like multiverses, hologram worlds, the Ekpyrotic Universe, Time Travel, the idea of a fake universe and we live in a sort of video game simulation, and string theory.
A first: String theory predicts an experimental result
https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/stringTheory.asp
Is Our Universe a Fake?
http://www.space.com/30124-is-our-universe-a-fake.html
Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram
http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

If these things are true, then they're a part of our reality.

Of course, we don't have the means of determining whether or not they are... not yet, anyway.

Many scientists believed that the science would prove God. That what they sen in the universe and nature was revealing God and His creation.

I'm sure many still do.

But what they found then as they find now is that what they find via the process is not what they were taught to believe about God... so if He does exist, He is not what they thought they were. Some people are put off by that, or even the barest possibility of that -- but remember, the process only works if we are willing to follow it wherever it may lead... and it does often tend to lead us out of our comfort zone.

Modern science is looking into the effects of belief and how it can have an effect on things like health. Things such as mind over matter, the observer effect, the placebo effect ect are becoming more prominent in scientific research. These things are showing results where traditional science couldn't. So even though the idea of moving mountains may have been an exaggeration it may have some truth in the idea that faith/belief can achieve things that other methods can't.

The body can do some pretty amazing things if the mind will let it, no doubt about that.

Case in point:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-more-effective-than-a-cheap-one-study-shows/

Two groups of patients were given placebos -- but while one group was told that their treatment cost $1,500 a dose, while the other group was told their treatment was only $100... (all "covered by their insurance," of course -- no actual money changed hands).

Guess which group reported more "success"?

 

[stevevw]

Indeed -- and had the church not strayed from its original purpose to become a center for political and social power, they wouldn't have seen his idea as a threat.

I think the church did see some of these ideas as a threat. But that was the church which had taken things into their own hands, not the hands of God but the hands of controlling men who wanted to have power over everyone.

If these things are true, then they're a part of our reality.

Not really no pun intended. Multiverses have other dimensions or worlds in which there would be another reality that may have different physical parameters to ours. Some of these ideas claim that we dont really know what reality is such as a hologram theory which is based on a two dimensional world. There may be another world outside that two dimensional one where someone is controlling things or there is just another world dimension just like the one we live in. The point is many of these ideas say that we dont really know that our own reality is what we see. What we see may be just an illusion of what is really going on. This is mainly based on the effects we see in the quantum world.

Of course, we don't have the means of determining whether or not they are... not yet, anyway.

Some say that we will never be able to directly test and verify these things. Its all speculation from where we stand. Thats why some scientists want to lower the criteria for what is scientific verification. Because it is impossible to verify ideas like multiverses ect they want to be able to claim them as verified without direct evidence because they know they will never be able to do so.

I'm sure many still do

Yes and its interesting that 100s of years later from these first discoveries we are trying to come to terms with worlds like quantum physics and genetics.To me its like full circle. Science gradually moved us away from the belief that God was responsible for creating everything. But back then people believed without the information, not that this should be the basis of a faith. But now we are discovering things that are beyond what science can deal with. It is showing great design in things far beyond what science predicted to the point that it cannot explain things naturally.

The quantum world is showing contradictory results from the way we have understood physics and what we have based all our ideas on. It points to ideas that go far beyond what science would normally call falsifiable and what some would say was far fetched just like they say with God. Yet even now science is appealing to some of these ideas themselves because that is what the evidence us pointing to. So its almost as though the science has brought us to this point and what we are discovering is a world beyond what science can comprehend.

But what they found then as they find now is that what they find via the process is not what they were taught to believe about God... so if He does exist, He is not what they thought they were. Some people are put off by that, or even the barest possibility of that -- but remember, the process only works if we are willing to follow it wherever it may lead... and it does often tend to lead us out of our comfort zone.

Its all about levels of awareness. Just because there maybe a God doesn't mean our understanding can be enlightened. It also doesn't mean by enlightenment that we snuff God out. As stated earlier it can also give us a greater understanding of how God works. But not everyone will be bothered to know this and salvation isn't based on a scientific knowledge of God. For those who like to get into that sort of stuff it is good and can improve your knowledge.

To me it seems the more we understand about the world the more we see that there had to be a designer/creator. That a self creating natural process could not have been capable of making what we see. Science has yet to explain how this can happen. What they claim is an explanation are really ideas and theories that try to explain things from a natural world view. But an explanation has no creative ability. For all we know science may be just explaining Gods creation. I am sure science will try to put an explanation on anything even if it was supernatural to make it seem like it was a logical and natural occurrence.

 

[stevevw]

The body can do some pretty amazing things if the mind will let it, no doubt about that.

Case in point:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-more-effective-than-a-cheap-one-study-shows/

Two groups of patients were given placebos -- but while one group was told that their treatment cost $1,500 a dose, while the other group was told their treatment was only $100... (all "covered by their insurance," of course -- no actual money changed hands).

Guess which group reported more "success"?

Yes and there was another case where the patients even knew it was a placebo test and it still produced better results. So it seems just the thought of being involved in the test was enough to make a difference. People are ready and open to belief and it can have a power result on them if they let it.
The Placebo Effect Works Even When You Know You Are Taking A Placebo
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/placebos-work-even-when-you-know-they-are-placebos

 

[FredVB]

What do you mean by beliefs that have been scientifically verified. Do you mean scientific ideas.
The problem is many make their own conclusions out of those answers or explanation that will support their world view on things.
The difference is is that the answers that they were looking for were all within our own world and reality. Now it seems scientists are coming to a point where they have to step outside that and appeal to things beyond what is testable.

Still within out own world and reality... where is it not?

Aside from the concept of a multiverse clearly so, and other things already mentioned, there are the explanations with dark energy. It is derived for problems for the big bang theory with what has been found. That theory had some evidence, but what is found is a real problem to that being the case for reality, without having the concept of dark energy for an explanation, without the actual evidence of dark energy, other than it explains that which is the problem now in the big bang theory. It amounts to more extrapolation in what isn't really known factually, the more that is done the more unreliable is what is believed from that. There is more with faith going on, indeed.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Aside from the concept of a multiverse clearly so, and other things already mentioned, there are the explanations with dark energy. It is derived for problems for the big bang theory with what has been found. That theory had some evidence, but what is found is a real problem to that being the case for reality, without having the concept of dark energy for an explanation, without the actual evidence of dark energy, other than it explains that which is the problem now in the big bang theory. It amounts to more extrapolation in what isn't really known factually, the more that is done the more unreliable is what is believed from that. There is more with faith going on, indeed.

That's not really true.

The main evidence for dark matter is the gravitational effects on things we see in the modern day. We know given the motion of galaxies and whatnot that there is a great deal of matter that we can't see directly, but we can see the effects of it due to the motion of visible objects.

It happens to correlate with the amount of matter we'd expect to have in the big bang to produce a flat universe, like the one we live in. This serves as a secondary supporting line of evidence.

We have plenty of reason to believe dark matter exists. Discovering something by witnessing the effects on other things is fairly common. That's how we discovered Helium for example, we saw a band of yellow was being absorbed in light coming from the sun, we then deduced that had to be due to some as of yet unknown element absorbing that wavelength of light. A couple decades later, we finally found helium directly.

We're in that initial stage with Dark Matter right now, we can see the effect it has on other things, so we know something is there, that's beyond doubt. Furthermore we know roughly how much of it must exist, and what its mass would be, however as of yet we haven't figured out a way to observe the particles directly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The main evidence for dark matter is ...

He was talking about dark energy...

 

[Dave Ellis]

He was talking about dark energy...

Sorry, you're correct. I didn't quite complete my post. I was on a rush out the door and it seems I forgot to include my conclusion. (Great moments in forum posting!)

Anyway, the end point is that with that much mass and matter in the universe, we would not see the expansion of the universe that we currently do. We'd expect to see the universe start collapsing in on itself, instead we see the universe not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating. That is physically impossible without a large amount of extra energy that we also currently can't identify.

As such, it's the same basic principle. We can see the effects of dark matter and dark energy, but haven't directly observed them. Again, observing effects quite often lead to discovering the previously unknown thing in science. That's where we are right now in regards to this field of study.

We know something is out there causing these effects, we can also calculate how much of it must be there based on how much of an effect we see. We call those things dark matter and dark energy. We don't know much else about these things, and likely won't be able to investigate more until we can directly detect and can experiment on them.

It's just a matter of developing the technology and methods required to detect them.

 

[FredVB]

I forgot to include my conclusion.
Anyway, the end point is that with that much mass and matter in the universe, we would not see the expansion of the universe that we currently do. We'd expect to see the universe start collapsing in on itself, instead we see the universe not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating. That is physically impossible without a large amount of extra energy that we also currently can't identify.
As such, it's the same basic principle. We can see the effects of dark matter and dark energy, but haven't directly observed them. Again, observing effects quite often lead to discovering the previously unknown thing in science. That's where we are right now in regards to this field of study.
We know something is out there causing these effects, we can also calculate how much of it must be there based on how much of an effect we see. We call those things dark matter and dark energy. We don't know much else about these things, and likely won't be able to investigate more until we can directly detect and can experiment on them.
It's just a matter of developing the technology and methods required to detect them.

Indeed, I was not bringing up dark matter. Certainly, I don't make argument to something being there when not seen, as dark matter, with evidence from recognized gravitation involved, any more than I would with the wind. Evidence works for that. I already for a long time before guessed that there was much more matter that was distributed universally that is never being detected.

On the contrary, big bang theory is already assumed to be showing the fact of the big bang, and the suggested evidence now recognized for accelerated expansion is now a problem for it, without invoking something like dark energy for it, without any evidence, just for explaining it as such a thing would be needed for it. It is certainly not known how much of it there would be without what there is of the big bang theory used as basis. It is more extrapolation for holding to a theory.