Why is there no world-wide proof of God?

[Mortensen]

Doesn't the big bang theory say that everything was created from nothing?

 

[michabo]

Thanks michabo I kind of ran out of arguments up there :S

But how do you explain that the beginning of the universe, the creation of the universe happened exactly 13.7 billion years ago? Something scientific triggering it? In that case, what triggered that...

This is a big subject, and not a lot to draw upon. The action that needs explaining (the Big Bang) has the unfortunate property of placing a limit on the observations we can make

Cosmologists have shown that there are many different models of the universe which are consistent with observation, ranging from an eternal universe but an unfolding of our familliar four dimensions (the so-called "No Boundary Universe" as described by Stephen Hawking), to an endless cycle of expanding and contracting universes (less likely now, as our universe doesn't seem to be contracting, but rather expanding), to an infinte number of universes with all possible physical constants (not that we know what possible constants are available) inspired by Feynman's sum over histories, to constantly creating universes, to a possible multitude of universes resulting from a collision of cosmological 'branes, and on and on. Some of the more active investigation is going into the last of these, under the names of Ekpyrotic Theory or M-Theory.

The theories which do not posit an eternal universe are working on models which would explain the very initial conditions for a "seed universe". Once this happens, Guth's inflationary phase can kick in and the expansion, matter, background radiation, element distribution, matter-distribution and other properties are a natural consequence.


M-Theory does have some large-scale structures which exist outside of the universe. They are very simple structures, as we would expect from anything which would be fundamental. (Unlike God, apparently. Why theists should believe that something fundamental should also be complex is beyond me.)

Unfortunately, as I say, making direct observations is extremely difficult. Energy has been focused on M-Theory in part because it may offer predictions which may be tested experimentally. It would potentially offer a way to unite GR and QM which would be a major triumph. Unfortunately the mathematics are extremely difficult and the only values extracted have been post-dictions and not predictions (the values of the hypothetical graviton were calculated) and so are of little value when trying to distinguish this theory from competitors.


Right now, we can talk with some confidence about events which occured up to 1*10^-43 sec after the BB (I think - I may be off by some factor), but not beyond. That we are able to do this is an incredible achievement, unparalleled in human history. Of course we want to know more, but it may take time. It may take longer than our lifetimes, and some think it may not be humanly possible. I really don't know, but I do know that the only honest answer we have right now is that we simply don't know with any confidence how our universe came into being. Anyone who tells you different is lying.

 

[michabo]

Doesn't the big bang theory say that everything was created from nothing?

I hate those terms, so I tend to just substitute my own

The BB theory shows that everything (all matter) was created from nothing (no matter, or vacuum).


There is a theory which says that energy may not be created or destroyed, and that matter is a form of energy, so it is tempting to say that the appearance of matter when there was none before is equivalent to saying that energy was created where there was none before, but this isn't the case. Matter may be created if there is a corresponding energy deficit elsewhere (or some negative energy, as is stored within the gravitational field). This is the case with the Inflationary period of the BB. The theory predicts a net-zero energy for the universe, and it is possible this is the case.

But determining the exact amount of energy for the universe today is probably impossible using GR. I'm getting out of my depth here, though

 

[michabo]

Doesn't the big bang theory say that everything was created from nothing?

As an addendum, you might want to look at Virtual Particles. They are created out of nothing, but their net energy is zero and they quickly annihilate. They can be made real, and this has been observed in the lab. It is this production of VPs, and the blocking of annihilation which lead to the matter we see today.

You may be thinking that if these VPs are being created as particle anti-particle pairs, then they would create a large amount of radiation and relatively few of them would survive this, and you would be right. This was a prediction of the BB theory, and was observed as the cosmic background radiation, a remnant of what happened to the vast amount of matter that arose in the early moments of the BB.

 

[Mortensen]

I see

 

[DeepThinker]

I really don't know, but I do know that the only honest answer we have right now is that we simply don't know with any confidence how our universe came into being. Anyone who tells you different is lying.

Well cant sleep, nice to see you have calmed down a little and that on the quote above we can both agree. What I cant understand is your agrivation that I must know nothing about science to be a Christian.

The perpose of my posts on these threads has been to prove that not all Christians belive on blind faith, I do not belive in God through total faith, though this is an aspect of it, and I do not support any theory no matter how hair brianed just because it supports the idea that God exists, I thought about the universe philosophically and came to the conclusion that there is a God through the reasons I gave you, I admit I'm no genius (Ibelive I said this before) so mabey my arguments are not going to be perfect, I do however know that there are vallid scientific arguments, (especially the one about the tiny chance that all the laws of nature work in harmony just by fluke).

I am not saying I can prove Gods existance, (If i did that I would not have to argue with you) what I will say though is that science and the existance of a supream being support each other, in as much a sense that they do not.

 

[DeepThinker]

I guess the best way to answer this thread "why is there no world wide proof of God" would be to say, you cant prove anything. Why would God be an exeption

 

[michabo]

Well cant sleep, nice to see you have calmed down a little and that on the quote above we can both agree. What I cant understand is your agrivation that I must know nothing about science to be a Christian.

DeepThinker,

My antipathy towards you is not due to me thinking you unintelligent. I think that you probably are an intelligent person, and it is this intelligence which may be a problem. You have an irrational belief ("faith"), and are probably having a hard time reconciling this faith with your self-image as in intelligent person.

It also has nothing to do with your being a Christian. I know many intelligent theists, and some intelligent Christians. I don't like to judge by theology because it is a pervasive belief and so I don't think people can be held fully accountable for it.

It is what you do with this belief that matters.

I see in you a breathtaking arrogance. I see you propound about scientific theories when you don't display an understanding of basic science, let alone the revolutionary discoveries of the last century. When you believe that, despite your ignorance, you know more about the universe than people whose lives are devoted to the subject.

This is very common, but that is no excuse.

I do however know that there are vallid scientific arguments, (especially the one about the tiny chance that all the laws of nature work in harmony just by fluke).

I've tried to explain this to you twice, but you still repeat this old fallacy. I won't spend more time on it until you have learned enough to repeat the arguments against it. (Or at least can ask pointed questions about it.)

I am not saying I can prove Gods existance, (If i did that I would not have to argue with you) what I will say though is that science and the existance of a supream being support each other, in as much a sense that they do not.

Science does not now, nor will it ever, support a "Supreme Being".

Why?

Because no theist has the courage to come up with the first requirements for a theory: an empirical definition, and falsifiability. You will never, never be able to claim that an observation supports your idea until you can show there are observations which would reject your idea. You will never be able to claim that an observation supports your idea until you can tell us exactly what your idea is.

You use poetry and meaningles phrases like "God" or "supreme being" and whatever other phrases you used to claim exceptions for God, but until you can say what God is, and what God is not, you can never use science to support your cause.

 

[michabo]

I guess the best way to answer this thread "why is there no world wide proof of God" would be to say, you cant prove anything. Why would God be an exeption

"Proof" is a poor word, I agree. We can increase our confidence in many things. Why is God an exception?

 

[DeepThinker]

I see in you a breathtaking arrogance. I see you propound about scientific theories when you don't display an understanding of basic science, let alone the revolutionary discoveries of the last century. When you believe that, despite your ignorance, you know more about the universe than people whose lives are devoted to the subject.

Well there is a trait we share in common.

And I have demonstrated basic scientific knowlege, just not a deeper knowlege of it

You seem to be Blind to the fact that science has been used to explain God, there are countless theories in modern time none of which I know of have been absolutly disporoved, please please take some of your own medicine and loose the arogance.

Science can, has and will be again used to argue the existance of God

 

[DeepThinker]

"Proof" is a poor word, I agree. We can increase our confidence in many things. Why is God an exception?

YEY! Well I think thats our conclusion then, why didnt I say that earlier and save myself and you the trouble.

 

[michabo]

So why do you think that we can't increase our condence in the existence of God? That is what you seem to be trying to do, yet failing.

 

[DeepThinker]

"Proof" is a poor word, I agree. We can increase our confidence in many things. Why is God an exception?

this is what you said yourself I belive, the answer is we can increace our confidence in God science is one way, philosophy is another, if you do not choose to have your own confidence increased thats your personall decision, God is not an exeption to your rule.

 

[michabo]

this is what you said yourself I belive, the answer is we can increace our confidence in God science is one way, philosophy is another

How can we increase our confidence in God using science?

if you do not choose to have your own confidence increased thats your personall decision, God is not an exeption to your rule.

You believe that increasing confidence is a choice, like an opinion?

 

[DeepThinker]

How can we increase our confidence in God using science?


You believe that increasing confidence is a choice, like an opinion?

First question, im not going to go into this with you again, you are obviously set in your ways and belive what you want,

secondly no increasing confidence is not a choice, but the arguments you accept are. You are beliving what you want to in this way you are no different from any religious person, the only difference with you is you try to hide behind pretences that you dont have faith you are doing these things because they make sense, the problem is that you will never know, the theories that you quote are no more real than the ones I propose to you, yet you latch onto them because they prove what you want them to, you should change your quote by Steven Hawkin it does not suit your style of arguement, you think you are right and do not even accept the possiblity that you are not, btw brilliant man nice to know that not all scietists dont belive in a God .

This will be my last post as Im quite tired of your attempts to prove me wrong, and attempt to slip me up on every word, you are obviously a very intelegent man with a great knowlege of science, but untill you learn to open your mind you will be as Blind as anyone else be they Christian or atheist. I cant discuss philosophy with such a fellow as you but when you accept the possibility that your arguments are right because you make them so they must be, Ill be happy to discuss the issue again

Feel free to reply if it makes you feel big inside, but as I say I wont be reading it.

 

[michabo]

First question, im not going to go into this with you again, you are obviously set in your ways and belive what you want

You don't listen to arguments, don't listen to explainations. I thought that some Socratic questioning might be more your style. It would be a less confrontational way to allow you to express your views.

You are beliving what you want to in this way you are no different from any religious person, the only difference with you is you try to hide behind pretences that you dont have faith you are doing these things because they make sense, the problem is that you will never know, the theories that you quote are no more real than the ones I propose to you, yet you latch onto them because they prove what you want them to

That's a fine diatribe. I'm open to any argument. You know, a connected series of statements which are intended to support a claim. So far, you've offered nothing to substantiate your claims beyond some arguments from ignorance ("how could this universe be so well suited to live?" and "where did all this stuff come from") and some special pleading ("everything needs a cause except God").

Now you're attacking me. Well fine, that doesn't make your arguments any better. When you get any substance to your arguments, please come back. When you have any reason to think that I'm not open to arguments, that I am rejecting anything because they disagree with me, let me know. I follow well-defined guidelines to determine what I believe. I've no idea how you pick your beliefs, but it certainly isn't methodical.

you should change your quote by Steven Hawkin it does not suit your style of arguement, you think you are right and do not even accept the possiblity that you are not

Science presupposes that we can be, and often are wrong. Honesty compells me to admit that my (and all human) reasoning can be flawed. That is why I seek evidence for beliefs.

What do you do? Spin the bottle?

I cant discuss philosophy with such a fellow as you but when you accept the possibility that your arguments are right because you make them so they must be, Ill be happy to discuss the issue again

I'll always admit that I could be wrong, and I'll tell you what can make me wrong. I'll even tell you with what level of confidence I hold a belief, and why.

When you can do the same, do come back.

 

[copticorthodoxy]

What reason have God to hide is existence? Why is there people not believing in him? Shoud there even be doubt?

everything in this world proof that there is a great God ... Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

 

[RatzingerRocks]

What reason have God to hide is existence? Why is there people not believing in him? Shoud there even be doubt?

I feel a bit out of place as everyone seems to be a bit of an existentalist, however i fall more under scholasticism, and as such beleive in rational theology(God's existance can be rationally demonstrated, and faith and proper reason synthesize perfectly).

There are many arguments for God,

The argument from causality, the Ontological argument, the Existential argument, the moral argument, the free will argument, the argument for change exct.


I would recomend reading the first few pages of the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, Till we Have faces by C.S. Lewis, Introduction to Christainity by Pope Benedict XVI.

I mean this is a complicated subject, and it is the single most important aspect of our lives, however your probely not going to find those answers on a internet forum.

I'd realy stress reading "Introduction to CHristainity", and going and reading the works of Christain philosophers.


some great Authors to read are...

Joseph Ratzinger, Robert Sokolowski, and Jacques Maritain

 

[Mortensen]

everything in this world proof that there is a great God ... Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork

Give me proof and I'll believe. I mean; why is there doubt that there is a God?

 

[DeepThinker]

Give me proof and I'll believe. I mean; why is there doubt that there is a God?

If there is a God the whole point is to have faith in him. Otherwise its not beliving its knowing, I admit its alot simpler and there probobly is some great "proof" (hate the word) that he is around, but the discovery of God, or proof that he is not there is something that as humans we are not even close to discovering.

I dont like to preach, I belive everyone should have the right to their own oppinion, all I like to ask people to do is keep your mind open, and remember that if you want answers to great questions, your not going to find them through science at least in your own life time. "Proving" God exists would be immpossible as far as I can tell, if you belive in the story of Jesus (which its unlikely you do) but he came down as God incarnate, performed miracles no one had seen the likes of which before, and people still doubted him. People would not belive God if he appeared to them, so why bother to show himself?