What do you think

[pshun2404]

 

[lesliedellow]

If I was an atheist, would that convince me? I doubt it somehow. Whether theist or atheist, people will fit it into their preexisting beliefs.

 

[“Paisios”]

While it addresses some of the attributes of a Creator, it is still a long way from proving the existence and all the attributes that are described as the character of God in Nis fullness. At most, it suggests an inanimate creative force from outside as the primary cause of the universe...it doesn't suggest a Person.

 

[pitabread]

The universe had a beginning, therefore Goddidit?

I want my 5 minutes back...

 

[pshun2404]

The universe had a beginning, therefore Goddidit?

I want my 5 minutes back...

Granted. Go in peace!

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you think

No.

 

[VirOptimus]

If god was provable by science then faith would be unnecassary.

 

[xianghua]

While it addresses some of the attributes of a Creator, it is still a long way from proving the existence and all the attributes that are described as the character of God in Nis fullness. At most, it suggests an inanimate creative force from outside as the primary cause of the universe...it doesn't suggest a Person.

While it addresses some of the attributes of a Creator, it is still a long way from proving the existence and all the attributes that are described as the character of God in Nis fullness. At most, it suggests an inanimate creative force from outside as the primary cause of the universe...it doesn't suggest a Person.

the basic is to prove that a designer exist. we know that by the complex systems that we found in nature such as the self replicating motor as the atp synthase:

 

[Speedwell]

If god was provable by science then faith would be unnecassary.

That's the whole point. If God is provable by science then God can be forced on people who would not ordinarily turn to Him through faith. Belief can be imposed, along with the political agenda which invariably goes along with a creationist's God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

the basic is to prove that a designer exist. we know that by the complex systems that we found in nature such as the self replicating motor as the atp synthase:

Complexity is a subjective notion and not an indicator of design in any way.

 

[Adstar]

Be carefull:: God of forces hey????

Daniel 11: KJV
36 "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. {37} Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. {38} But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. {39} Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain. {40} And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. {41} He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. {42} He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. {43} But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. {44} But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. {45} And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Seems to me that Mr. Schroeder is interpreting that diagram to neatly fit his belief system, and in doing so is either being very careless or deliberately misleading.

The bulk of what he says about the diagram is correct, but his description of the laws of nature and the big bang are screwy.

The laws of nature are abstracted by us from observations of the physical - i.e. the actions of the physical define the laws of nature; IOW, the laws of nature are what the physical does.

We have hyper-active attribution of agency that inclines us to reify abstractions and the unexplained in terms of agency (that's how this whole 'god' business got started), but it's just a mental shortcut, a convenience. There's nothing to justify attributing independent agency to the 'laws of nature'; they're a descriptive human construct.

The universe evolution diagram starts where it does because we don't know what, if anything, preceded that point. Most physicists involved in cosmology are careful to state that the big bang is the earliest point we can apply our current physical models to - further back than that, the models fail - just as they do at the centre of black holes. Saying we don't know what came before is not the same as saying the universe came from nothing, just as saying we don't know what happens at the centre of a black hole is different from saying there's nothing there.

Schroeder relies for his ideas on one particular cosmological origin hypothesis of many - the 'universe from nothing', where quantum fluctuations 'create the universe' - but, oddly for a physicist, he forgets that quantum fluctuations are features of the physical, they are the fluctuating values of quantum fields. Without quantum fields there is nothing to fluctuate; and fundamentally, the laws of nature are a high level abstraction of what quantum fields do.

So even if we accept his favoured hypothesis, the 'universe from nothing', it's clear that 'nothing', in this context, means 'nothing but quantum fields'. He can call that 'god' if he likes, but I don't think that was his intent, although that was what he effectively said. I suspect he was deliberately misleading to promote his religious agenda.