Science Proves Creation

[AV1611VET]

What is being doubted is that you have a copy of that writing ...

I have a feeling you have a copy or two (or three) yourself.

 

[pitabread]

If the universe was created by a sentient being, then that sentient being would have to communicate this truth to us.

If fact, it would have to be in writing, and that writing preserved for all time.

You mean like this?

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean like this?

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

So how do you test those books? How does one know which one is true? Faith is not a pathway to the truth since Muslims and Hindus will have the same faith in their holy books as you do in yours.

 

[pitabread]

No.

Why not? It's a sacred text that contains descriptions of creation of the universe by a sentient being.

Seems to fulfill your requirements.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I understand that. But there is no discontinuity of the universe from there being limit to the observable universe, for a possible observer in far distant place in our observable universe, there would be a different observable universe for there, while our location would be included in that observable universe. Much further away, in that observable universe, and not in our observable universe, another observer would be causally isolated from anything where we are, and we are causally isolated from anything in that location. And so on, for other possible observers, causally isolated from our location and all the locations in our observable universe, still having some areas in their observable universe that are not causally isolated from other areas that are still causally isolated from those observers. So discontinuities are not suggested from that, that I see. There would not need to be gaps where nothing would move through, empty of all bodies and radiation of energy moving through.

That's right; there might be spaces with no matter or significant radiation (there will always be quantum background radiation) but the only discontinuities would be at the boundaries of those theoretical volumes where the false vacuum has decayed, producing a universe with a radically different spacetime.

 

[tas8831]

Thanks for the scientific evidence.

Of?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science can't prove creation, since science is myopic (as opposed to omniscient).

If the universe was created by a sentient being, then that sentient being would have to communicate this truth to us.

If fact, it would have to be in writing, and that writing preserved for all time.

But even that wouldn't guarantee 100% belief.

As long as people have the ability to doubt, they will doubt.

Yes, no such thing as faith without a choice- free will

But still the Bible is the most widely read and influential book of all time, I can't imagine that being some unintended surprise.. for a creator who gave us those powers to think, read, write, and be inspired.

 

[pitabread]

But still the Bible is the most widely read and influential book of all time, I can't imagine that being some unintended surprise.. for a creator who gave us those powers to think, read, write, and be inspired.

Sounds like survivorship bias to me.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Yes, no such thing as faith without a choice- free will

But still the Bible is the most widely read and influential book of all time, I can't imagine that being some unintended surprise.. for a creator who gave us those powers to think, read, write, and be inspired.

Pretty much says it all.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes, no such thing as faith without a choice- free will

But still the Bible is the most widely read and influential book of all time, I can't imagine that being some unintended surprise.. for a creator who gave us those powers to think, read, write, and be inspired.

Hmmm. If you take all versions of the Bible together it is the most widely read book over the past 50 years. But if you split it down to different versions (KJV/ASB/NIV etc) then the Quran is the most widely read book followed by KJV. And in the past 20 years I think the Harry Potter books were the most widely read.

But so what?

 

[tas8831]

.. for a creator who gave us those powers to think, read, write, and be inspired.

Fallacy of begging the question.

 

[FredVB]

Discontinuities in the universe is conjecture, the limit to the observable universe would work just as well without any of the conjectured discontinuities. So any observers in other galaxies distant enough from us in this observable universe would see an observable universe that has some of the universe observable to us and some further universe not observable to us, very possibly without discontinuity, just as any discontinuity is not in our observable universe. If there were discontinuities we might see something of that but we do not.

 

[Estrid]

Let's start with a couple of axioms.

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.

Now for the science:

The second law of thermodynamics can be precisely stated in the following two forms, as originally formulated in the 19th century by the Scottish physicist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and the German physicist Rudolf Clausius, respectively:

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transform heat extracted from a source which is at the same temperature throughout into work is impossible.

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.

Source: thermodynamics | Laws, Definition, & Equations - Isothermal and adiabatic processes

In other words, heat is transferred from an area of greater concentration, to an area of lesser concentration.
With the radiation of a finite amount of heat, over infinite space, over infinite time, the universe would infinitely approach a temperature of absolute zero. There are inefficiencies in converting energy from one form to another. Any energy which isn't converted to work, is dissipated as heat. No work; no motion.

A temperature scale whose zero point is absolute zero, the temperature of 0 entropy at which all molecular motion stops, -273.15° C. The size of a degree Kelvin is the same as the size of a degree Celsius.

Kelvin -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

In other words, no energy; no work. No work, no motion. No motion; no molecules.

The tangible universe as we perceive it could not, nor cannot, have existed, nor continue to exist, eternally.

Some would argue that the Singularity preexisted the current universe eternally, before the Big Bang.

Nonsense! The same laws would apply to the Singularity; and what would cause the Singularity to go "bang" In the relatively recent past? Eternity is a very long time. If the Singularity was going to go "bang:" it would have done so an eternity ago; and the universe would have already infinitely approached absolute zero.

"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end" (Psalm 102:25–27).

Discuss...

Lets start with your header: " science proves"
No, it doesnt. Science doesnt do proof.

 

[Astrophile]

Let's start with a couple of axioms.

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.

Now for the science:

The second law of thermodynamics can be precisely stated in the following two forms, as originally formulated in the 19th century by the Scottish physicist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and the German physicist Rudolf Clausius, respectively:

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transform heat extracted from a source which is at the same temperature throughout into work is impossible.

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.

Source: thermodynamics | Laws, Definition, & Equations - Isothermal and adiabatic processes

In other words, heat is transferred from an area of greater concentration, to an area of lesser concentration.
With the radiation of a finite amount of heat, over infinite space, over infinite time, the universe would infinitely approach a temperature of absolute zero. There are inefficiencies in converting energy from one form to another. Any energy which isn't converted to work, is dissipated as heat. No work; no motion.

A temperature scale whose zero point is absolute zero, the temperature of 0 entropy at which all molecular motion stops, -273.15° C. The size of a degree Kelvin is the same as the size of a degree Celsius.

Kelvin -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

In other words, no energy; no work. No work, no motion. No motion; no molecules.

The tangible universe as we perceive it could not, nor cannot, have existed, nor continue to exist, eternally.

Some would argue that the Singularity preexisted the current universe eternally, before the Big Bang.

Nonsense! The same laws would apply to the Singularity; and what would cause the Singularity to go "bang" In the relatively recent past? Eternity is a very long time. If the Singularity was going to go "bang:" it would have done so an eternity ago; and the universe would have already infinitely approached absolute zero.

"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end" (Psalm 102:25–27).

Discuss...

What sort of creation are you talking about? As Skreeper said,

Wait where did you show that science proves creation? All I see is some rambling about thermodynamics and a clear misunderstanding of the Big Bang. How does that "prove" a being created the universe?

Are you inferring that the origin of the universe in the 'Big Bang' 13.8 billion years ago required its creation by a sentient being of unknown nature, or are you saying that science proves that the creation story in Genesis 1 is true and that the universe was created in six days about 6000 years ago by the God of Israel and that therefore we must not eat pork or shellfish or work on the sabbath day?

Static, eternal, steady state, big crunch- were theoretical/ mathematical predictions also

They just didn't hold up to real-world observation

Multiverses put themselves conveniently beyond this inconvenience- I can imagine them- I agree with Larry Krauss on this though 'If your theory involves an invisible probability machine- it's not entirely clear that you even have a theory'

Beyond that you have the problem of a mechanism capable of creating anything and everything-( including 8 billion creative minds apparently) NOT creating anything we could call 'God'

The 8 billion creative minds that you mention are insignificant on the cosmic scale. The Sun , which is only one star in about 200 billion in the Galaxy, takes about two minutes to convert into energy a mass of hydrogen equivalent to the total mass of the human species. The star Sirius achieves this feat every five seconds, less time than it took me to write this sentence. Do you really think that the production of eight billion human beings was the main object of God's creating the universe?

 

[HARK!]

Are you inferring that the origin of the universe in the 'Big Bang' 13.8 billion years ago required its creation by a sentient being of unknown nature, or are you saying that science proves that the creation story in Genesis 1 is true and that the universe was created in six days about 6000 years ago by the God of Israel and that therefore we must not eat pork or shellfish or work on the sabbath day?

What would lead you to that inference?

 

[HARK!]

Lets start with your header: " science proves"
No, it doesnt. Science doesnt do proof.

I came to the same conclusion on my first day of Thermodynamics class.

Over the years I have experienced numerous instances that defy the supposedly known laws of Physics, and even logic.

 

[Estrid]

I came to the same conclusion on my first day of Thermodynamics class.

Over the years I have experienced numerous instances that defy the supposedly known laws of Physics, and even logic.

Do you understand why "science proves" is
a nonsensicsl thing to claim?

 

[BeyondET]

I dont think you know what I mean.

I don't think you know what you mean.

 

[Astrophile]

What would lead you to that inference?

I asked you a question, or rather two questions.

The first is, are you inferring that the origin of the universe in the 'Big Bang' 13.8 billion years ago requires its creation by a sentient being of unknown nature, and nothing more than that?

The second is, are you saying that science proves that the creation story in Genesis 1 is true?