Ah, you don't fool me. That only proves aliens were involved, not God. — Ciceronianus the White

:lol:

180 Proof, the identification of an event that is unexplanable by settled science is not a gap but a big deal. — Marco Colombini

You haven't identified anything. And "settled science" only identifies the unexplained - whether yet to be explained or only explanable in principle. You've merely posited your own "unexplanable" (i.e. woo woo). Stop talking nonsense.

My degree is a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) — Marco Colombini

From a Christian college right? Depending on the college, it doesn't count. I have to go to work now. I have a real job. Not "spreading the Word" sheesh

Talk to you latter tonight

The gamma term is the way speed affects the mass of the object. — Marco Colombini

Photons are attracted to a massive objects even though they have no mass. This is the famous experiment in which a solar eclipse is used to observe that the position of stars whose light is passing close to the Sun look as if they have shifted in position because the light is bent just slightly. The bending is proportional to the energy of the photon or the "mass equivalent". — Marco Colombini

Yikes - you've got this tangled! Let's start with this. Gamma has zero effect on mass. You can see that in the equation that determines the gamma. What is effected is the inertia/momentum. As to photons being effected by gravity, the better description is that they are just travelling in world lines that just are the distortion of space(time).

Imo it's time for you to put the brakes on your explications of physics, because if I am correcting you, then you have a problem.

My degree is a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.)
— Marco Colombini

From a Christian college right? — Gregory

It's a fair question. If you claim a credential, did it come off the back of a cereal box? Did you bust your ass for it and earn the right to be proud of it? Is it a certificate for parroting the resident views?

Augustusea

You raise interesting points...
My use of the term usable and non-usable energy actually applies not only to human activity but all activity by both animate and inanimate objects. The technical term is entropy and that always increases overall, although living organisms decease it locally (for themselves) only to increase it in the environment by a greater amount. A simple, perhaps too simple, example is a wind-up toy. Energy is put into the toy by winding up the spring. What happens to it...motion, sound...but eventually it all becomes heat. All the energy becomes unusable. Fresh energy is needed to wind the spring up again.
The universe started as a giant wind-up toy...enormous energy. That energy allowed the universe to self-assemble and allowed life to form. The usable energy is being converted into non-usable energy. Stars will run out of fuel. That will not be replaced.
There is a bottleneck in the formation of elements. The simultaneous fusion of 3 He atoms is needed to for carbon. There are no other pathways. If the energy levels are not quite right this reaction will not occur and further formation of elements will not take place. No matter what science fiction says, no life can exist with only two gases, or two liquids it the temperature were low enough.
Well, in my humble opinion, AI is not and will never be alive. It is very useful but is not life. It is an imitation of life. Silicon-based life has been speculated but there are many mechanistic problems with silicon. One obvious problem is that oxidation of silicon produces a solid that is difficult to eliminate if that is an end product of an energy-generating reaction.
I do not understand why the death of any individual would mean the death of the universe. A dead universe is one in which there is no life anywhere.
One can imagine many things, most of which do not exist.
By building a car I was referring to a complex object that requires high levels of technology and expertise to produce....just replace car by a fully functional Tesla or a fully functional 747 jetliner.
Dark matter, dark energy, string theory are all hypothetical proposals to try to explain observations or advance scientific theory. These were not predicted but proposed. In my opinion, the first 2 are likely to be valid. I have reservations regarding string theory...but that is not my area of expertise.

Gregory

Tim Wood

All scientific doctoral degrees are Ph.D. degrees. My degree is in Biochemistry. If you are interested you can find me in Google Scholar. I'm the one with over 14,000 citations of my research.
My point was that a scientific degree is historically a degree in philosophy. Ph.D. is doctor of philosophy in a particular sub-area. I was just bemoaning the separation between science and philosophy. Both seek to understand our world.

Tim Wood

You can look at gamma as just a term in an equation separate from mass. Alternatively the equation embodies reality and gamma expresses how speed changes gravity. I prefer the latter because it makes mechanistic sense.
As to light following "world lines", that is too simplistic...sorry to say. Despite having zero mass, photons are still attracted to matter by gravity. Yes, gravity can be understood as a distortion in space but that distortion (or strength of attraction) depends on the mass of the massive object and the "mass equivalent" of the photon, which depends on the energy of the photon. Thus a microwave photon, a light photon, and a gamma ray photon will be affected to different extents. Are they each following different "world lines"?
By the way, everyone has knowledge that they can share and I hope to learn for these discussions as much as I share of my knowledge.

Hrmphh.

God as the answer to any unanswered question.

Inspiring only pathos.

Your model of gravity, then, a Newtonian force?

Yes, gravity can be understood as a distortion in space — Marco Colombini

Space-time, and not a distortion in but of. When the words matter, then they matter.

And you know very well - you had better know very well - that some textbooks for undergraduates and popular science books for laymen often cheat, using outdated and wrong ideas for present pedantic purpose, because they work for that purpose. A poster-child for that being the atom as a mini-solar system, which I understand was retired c. 1912. Or a whole raft-full of Newtonian physics, because it's close enough. My guess you could provide examples from Biochemistry.

Please figure out how to use the quote function. Just "grab" the text you want to reply to, and you should see the "quote." Without it, your immediate correspondent receives no notice of your reply, nor are the comments linked.

Edit: you know what gamma is, yes?

Scientifically, the best hypothesis is the one that makes the fewest assumptions, — Marco Colombini

As a general rule of thumb, yes, but to actually analyze two completely different hypotheses with conflicting ontologies it becomes difficult to say which one is making more assumptions than the other. If this is some short hand representation of Occam's razor then you are making the assumption that the hypotheses in question do actually explain all required observations while being similar enough to compare which ever hypothesis is found to be extraneous (easier said than done).

requires the fewest number of parameters that are not experimentally determined, — Marco Colombini

Sure, in principle the fewest amount of experimentally unobservable ontological/metaphysical entities/assumptions would be preferred.

and explains the most about the subject in question. The subject in question is the nature of reality and that of our universe. — Marco Colombini

The nature of reality or the nature of anything is inherently unknowable as the only things we have access to are our sensory perceptions and the pragmatic epistemological idealism we would use to then analyze said perceptions or abstract from them.

The structure and dynamics of our universe is understood based on a set of fundamental constants, a set of forces, a set of laws, and equations that describe how matter and energy behave and interact. — Marco Colombini

Here the ontological rub in that the universe is "understood" or better yet "described" by these laws which we assume (even with skeptical outlooks on the ontology implied by such a theory) better match the behavior of said entities that would constitute our universe or the nature of them that guides their actions. I'll also note that energy is obviously a purely mathematical entity especially since (via Noether's theorem) we only get energy conservation from our laws if the laws in question are mathematically time translation invariant, energy here being some mathematical entity that is conserved.

This is the science of Physics and it is through this science that we can make sense of what we observe both qualitatively and quantitative. With this as a foundation, let's consider 2 hypotheses:

H1: Established Physics can explain all observations and thus there is no God.
H2: Established Physics fails fundamentally and God is necessary — Marco Colombini

H3: Physics (nor any other philosophical speculation) falls by the wayside if it seeks to establish or explain the nature of our experiences (an issue in its own right) and rather physics creates predictable models upon which to map reality.

Basically I take issue with the word "explanation" here as we are doomed to be slaves to our personal experiences and the true nature of the things we experience is always locked away from our grasp. The description of reality and where these descriptions extend to/apply is what we should be concerned with not any prescriptions you are supposing.

Current Physics does an excellent job of describing and explaining just about everything in the universe. This is not surprising because the science is constantly adjusted to fit all observations. The only requirement is that the properties of the universe are constant even if they were to change with time. Indeed, much of Physics is very solid and unlikely to change.

There are, however, problems. — Marco Colombini

Okay.

First of all, the universe is not in steady state but began about 13.8 billion years ago. All the universe began at that time: matter/energy and space/time. Before time zero there was no space into which matter or anything else could be placed. There was also no time in which processes could occur. This event cannot be explained by established Physics. A number of proposals to circumvent this problem have been published. None of these can be explained by established Physics and thus are in the realm of science fiction. — Marco Colombini

Yes, these explanations are in the realm of science fiction just as much as this interpretation (the ex nihilo one) of the big bang theory is. Every scientist/physicists who are atheist/theist have regarded the description that general relativity gives of reality as incomplete and in need of amending meaning any interpretation of spacetime/matter beginning 13.8 billion years ago would have to possess one hell of a reason to extend this theory with its understanding of spacetime (something also not cleared up by general relativity in spacetime philosophy) to places so for out of our testing of it that we have to admit infinities in the mathematics (infinite temperature, infinite density, etc). It's incomplete and if all modern day physics attempts to amend such a theory (as it's INCOMPLETE) would not validate using a particularly extreme interpretation of the theory with a particular interpretation of spacetime (not accepted by all physicists/philosophers) that can even begin to handle when temperatures arise to such a degree. This spacetime interpretation of general relativity isn't even that clear cut as other positions have arisen over the years with some taking spacetime as emergent/fundamental/coexistent with matter.

Secondly, the properties of the universe are such that as the universe self-assembled into what it is today, life could form and indeed also intelligent life. There is no reason that the fundamental constants and other properties should be as they are. Yet, most of these must be as they are in order for life to form. Even small changes result in a dead universe. The typical response is that if the properties were not what they are we would not be here to ask the question. That misses the point. Not only does established Physics have no explanation for how the universe began and no explanation of the reality before the universe formed but it cannot explain why the properties of the universe are as they are since there is not reason for the properties to be as they are. A proposal, that there are actually an infinite number of parallel universes with all possible variations in physical properties, attempts to explain the this but in doing so it introduces an infinite number of unmeasurable parameters and thus it is not a viable hypothesis. — Marco Colombini

There is no reason these fundamental constants should be the way they are as far as were aware (we haven't discovered it yet if there is one) but there also isn't any reason that such fundamental constants could have been one of infinitely many others/a finite set or this is the only truly possible universe to exist (speaking about metaphysical/nomological possibilities and not conceptual ones). Basically while this is left unknown to us we cannot speculate on probability or possibility of this particular universe without first knowing what truly possible universes could have come about. You and I can consider many conceptually different universes but with respect to what universes could actually exist we do not possess knowledge (nor know how we could attain it) to specify what greater restrictions there are on what can exist.

The multiverse theory, if there is a viable example, would have to possess testable hypotheses and hold up to extreme scrutiny to be considered. Though, it still could be viable and where you say "infinite number of unmeasurable parameters" I don't know whether you mean the parameters given can vary along a segment of the real number line or that there actually are infinite adjustable parameters that are also each adjustable along the real number line. . . something I don't think any modern multiverse theory has the complication of being so.

Thirdly, well before the "big bang" was proposed, scientific observations required that the universe had a beginning. The second law of Thermodynamics, a law often tested and always found to be correct, requires that energy be less available to do work every time it is used. Thus the universe started off at insanely high energy levels and useful energy has been lost ever since...converted to heat. Eventually this loss of usable energy will result in a lifeless Universe. Thus the Universe is highly tuned for life to come into existence but its properties will eventually extinguish all life. Physics can describe this in detail but not explain why this is the case. — Marco Colombini

Well in my eyes physics nor philosophy where ever "explain" (define this term) these aspects of our world if at best we only ever know that they exist and all other bridges of investigation have burned down you have to be realistic or become comfortable with not knowing.

Though, when it comes to the second law of thermodynamics and then intermix that with quantum mechanics you can get momentary as well as unlikely but not impossible reversals of thermodynamics. Under certain quantum theories given an un-ending future no matter how unlikely the possibility sooner or later you could have a spontaneous reversal of thermodynamics resulting in, yes, a new big bang. If you wanted to get at what the best descriptions of how our universe works we would need to incorporate quantum mechanics which does possess such violations on smaller scales as well as theoretical ones (via the same model) on much larger scales.

The existence of God naturally explains all these and gives a purpose to existence. In addition there is direct historical evidence for the existence of God from the many scientifically impossible events performed by God and witnessed at times by few and at other times by thousands of skeptical observers. — Marco Colombini

You have a burden of proof and now you must respect such a burden by first defining what a god is and how you know this particular being exists. Then go into how this god concept can give us a predictively successful model of reality that is better than any given previous.

Also, on the "thousands of skeptical observers" if you are talking about the miracle of Fatima no other person/scientist on earth noticed any changes in the suns positions (especially gravitationally) nor did anyone else report it as such doing rather strange behaviors but if you are talking about Jesus performing miracles to thousands in the bible note that the central claim here is that there were thousands (no second hand reports were given) so we cannot know that thousands actually said such an action was performed (or that these thousands actually existed).

turkeyMan, thanks for your comment. All science can say with confidence is that shortly after time zero the energy level was so great that all matter/energy (these are the substance in different firms) existed only as energy...i.e. light ...extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation. — Marco Colombini

Light isn't pure energy that's sort of a misnomer.

Matter only formed later when the energy became more reasonable. Our whole understanding of the beginning of the Universe comes from a backward extrapolation. It's somewhat like extrapolating an explosion backward except that space and time are also extrapolated backward. Unlike an explosion that would require some initial substance to explode, just think of all the matter/energy of the Universe crammed into a point...all 10 to the power 22 stars packed into a point. That is such a truly insane energy level that it is impossible to comprehend. There is obviously nothing in this Universe that could cause such an event...hence the instant of creation. — Marco Colombini

Here you're are using the word universe which i'm assuming you mean as what we can see through telescopes as the greater cosmos (existing stuff beyond our sight or disconnected from our spacetime) is not accessible to us and we have not reason to rule it out or in.

Gregory, it depends on how we define a person. God needs to be extremely intelligent to not only provide the right amount of matter/energy but also exactly the right parameters for the Universe to self-assemble as it did. — Marco Colombini

Intelligence has nothing to do with it unless you think that the intelligence we possess allows us to walk through walls. We can manipulate loosely the reality that surrounds us as well as makes us up but creating it extends this analogy so far that you would have to specify how you know an extremely intelligent being could do so.

Consider what one would need to do, based on our scientific knowledge just to adjust the values of the fundamental constants so that when elements formed the right amount of carbon would form from helium atoms but not be all converted to oxygen leaving no carbon for life to originate. Consider what values would allow the formation of the compounds necessary for life? How strong should be the electrostatic interaction? How strong should gravity be. If too weak, our Earth would not retain its atmosphere. If too strong, large animals could not exist. As to science, yes there is speculation but settled science is strongly supported by experiments. There is hard and soft science. Hard science is highly unlikely to change. The properties of the elements are very well categorized. The structures and properties of many biological macromolecules (DNA, proteins, etc) are well known. ...and so on. True, in Physics there is far more speculation but that is followed by experimental testing to eliminate incorrect ideas. The events in the past that were scientifically impossible are still so today and could only be caused by the same God that created the Universe. — Marco Colombini

You still haven't defined god without vagueness/incoherency so how can be so confident without telling us what to be confident in clearly existing.

Hypotheses are formulated by making observations and trying to understand these by generating an hypothesis. One could come up with several hypotheses to explain the same observations. Then one would try to find the correct hypothesis by trying to disprove each one. If one's ability to experimentally disprove each of these is limited, one then selects the best hypothesis as the most reliable until more information is available. The inability to disprove a hypothesis does not make it incorrect. With regard to the existence of God, my H1 hypothesis is disproved leaving H2. One could say, there is no hypothesis because H2 cannot be falsified. However, there is much evidence in favor of H2. With H2 many jigsaw puzzle pieces fit together into a coherent picture. In science the ability of a hypothesis to explain much indicates a correct hypothesis. — Marco Colombini

You gave a false dichotomy and misunderstanding as to me (a sort of pragmatic epistemological idealist) at most the only thing we can do is create concepts to describe how things act/behave/relate to each other but the true nature of them is philosophically left by the way side. We can only describe things and if there is something inconsistent with our descriptions then we switch it up and create new ones that better describe it. . . perhaps we could speculate that were getting closer to matching reality but we will always be one step behind it.

You also haven't defined god so we can't investigate whether it's or is not successful in better explaining our observations or in other terms better describing them.

Every action requires that matter and energy are conserved. — Marco Colombini

Well matter is just an umbrella term for stuff which isn't a measure and the mass or inertia of objects isn't something that is conserved. Energy, even in our universe, due to general relativity isn't much conserved since energy requires time translation symmetry.

The fact is that the Universe exists and did not exist. Did it come from nothing? — Marco Colombini

Again, you should specify by universe you mean observable universe which in the form it's right now may not have once existed (the matter that consists of it still did). You'll have to specify how creation from nothing actually is even a coherent concept in its own right.

Space indeed exists. In the realm of science, there is no question that space exists. Indeed, one dimension of space is time. As you know, we exist in 4 dimensions (there may be more). The location of everything in space/time can be defined by providing 4 dimensional measurements. If one wants to find someone or something, the location needs to be given in 4 dimensions. On Earth, the information may be provided in a simpler and cruder fashion. — Marco Colombini

Not exactly as you would need to consult spacetime philosophy on this. . . start here.

Mass is converted to energy as described in Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2.
Perhaps there is another (valid) example of something that both exists and does not exist. I'd be curious to hear about it. — Marco Colombini

Not really. . . first the equation is incomplete as it's E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. Second, energy is a largely mathematical entity involved in the description of the behvaior of matter and here you don't exactly get mass being converted into energy but rather put into a mathematical equivalency (energy-mass equivalency). Energy describes a mathematically conserved aspect of systems of particles and mass is a property of matter not identical to it.

Yes indeed relativistic mass is what increases. Now that becomes a semantic argument. What is that gamma term? The gamma term is the way speed affects the mass of the object. — Marco Colombini

Well relativistic mass is a concept that has been largely abandoned by physicists as far as i'm aware of as the rest mass of a particle doesn't increase with speed (it's invariant) and this thing we call the relativistic mass (gamma*m) is just mathematically arbitrary.

Photons are attracted to a massive objects even though they have no mass. — Marco Colombini

No rest mass!

Note that the classical gravitation equation does not work in this case either because the real mass is zero for the photon. — Marco Colombini

This would assume or have us presume a connection strictly between the concept of inertial mass in classical physics to rest mass which may or may not be justified.

I'm a scientist. Historically scientists and philosophers were one and the same. My degree is a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.). The separation in recent times is unfortunate. I apologize for not addressing your concerns but I'd like to keep the focus elsewhere. — Marco Colombini

Then you should be able to then define god and tell us how this concept of god gives us better predictable models. . . which is really the only thing you as a scientist should entirely worry about. As a philosopher be equally concerned with semantics/language as you are in epistemology.

Yes, gravity can be understood as a distortion in space but that distortion (or strength of attraction) depends on the mass of the massive object and the "mass equivalent" of the photon, which depends on the energy of the photon. — Marco Colombini

The model describes gravitation in terms of geometrical relations dependent on the energy-momentum content of a certain region. Whether it's really bent spacetime or in what way the metaphysical grounding is supposed to go (matter or spacetime) is a question you haven't gone into nor seem to have considered.

Perhaps there is another (valid) example of something that both exists and does not exist. I'd be curious to hear about it. — Marco Colombini

Perhaps we could try this? Math is real, but it doesn't exist. I think space is like that.

We can define space as existing only by demolishing the definition of existence. If space is said to exist, then anything that has no mass, no weight, no shape or form, and is invisible to every observation could also be said to exist, and we would thus quickly enter looney land.

Evolution has trained our minds to think in simplistic dualistic terms, because that is what works at human scale. Watch out for the tiger, grab the food, find a mate, and your genes continue. I'm not objecting to such simplistic uses of "existence" in daily life.

The problem arises when we try to map these simplistic dualistic mind generated patterns, which are a VERY local phenomena, on to the very largest questions about everything everywhere, ie. the scope of god claims. That's what I'm objecting to.

I'm proposing that the phenomena of space illustrates that the question of existence is a lot more complicated than something existing or not. As a scientist who presumably bases a lot of your perspective on observation of reality, this would seem to matter to whatever claims you wish to make about God.

I'm not challenging whatever your beliefs about God might be. I'm challenging the "does God exist" question because, to me, the simplistic either/or, yes/no nature of that question doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to space, the vast majority of reality.

If the "does God exist" question is dethroned (and why shouldn't it be given that it's never led to proof of anything) the vast majority of God debate is swept off the table, which may open doors to other approaches which will prove more productive.

Was it Einstein who claimed that doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the definition of stupidity? That's how I view the "does God exist" debate. Thousands of years of claims and counter claims, never leading to proof of anyone's claim. Is it our intention to repeat this unproductive pattern forever?

My degree is in Biochemistry. If you are interested you can find me in Google Scholar. I'm the one with over 14,000 citations of my research. — Marco Colombini

This is a subject for another thread but briefly, for what it's worth, I don't accept science culture as a whole as being expert at reason. Science culture in general is determined to give the human race ever more power at an ever faster pace, willfully ignoring that human beings can not successfully manage unlimited power. Science culture is basically marching blindly towards it's own destruction.

Experts at science? Yes, agreed.

Experts at reason? No, certainly not.

I'm making this point in response to what seem to be your attempts to apply the cultural authority of science to the God topic.

Math is real, but it doesn't exist. — Hippyhead

It exists in our heads and on the chalk board you write. If anything it's a mirage. . . a mirage gives the impression of one thing when in reality is was something different the whole time but there was still something actually occurring. There weren't palm trees and a water basin out in the distance but it we merely a perceptual illusion as you interpretation of it was off. . . the experiences of it still existed as it was the nature of it or surface nature that you got wrong.

Was it Einstein who claimed that doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the definition of stupidity? — Hippyhead

Einstein - "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”

I'm proposing that the phenomena of space illustrates that the question of existence is a lot more complicated than something existing or not. — Hippyhead

Yes, it has more to do with properties we give it as even under spacetime relationism it would still exist it's just the case that spacetime is more or less structurally emergent or dependent on matter.

I'm making this point in response to what seem to be your attempts to apply the cultural authority of science to the God topic. — Hippyhead

Yeah, he really needs to consider the point of discussing god and the primary reasons to do so. Is it to come into a fully understanding of reality (in which god could be besides the point) or are we more concerned with the concepts existential nature?

Asserting that only a person can be "it's own causality"-necessary is quite a claim and comes with a lot of ontological baggage

Asserting that you can prove there is a person out there who is really three people who don't have a body but who are in reality my real dad.. well I find that almost offensive

I just got done attempting to discuss something very close to this thread post with a Christian author. Surprise surprise, trained at the University of Notre Dame, the distinguished fella ran away. He would not shoulder his burden of proof, namely because he sensed where it might lead, and he wanted to keep hold of his happy idea of God. When Marco says, "The existence of God naturally explains all these and gives a purpose to existence." He has equivocated on the word "explains." Therefore, I advise all serious thinkers to depart from this conversation and move onto things that matter. If the complaint is that science or physics fails to explain, then one's idea of God (posited as explanation) must do, in exactly the same way, what science and physics failed to do. If this is not the case then one has equivocated on the term. So much more can be said. In my humble opinion this is not a serious conversation.

@180 Proof How about this? You correctly pointed to the fact that science evolves - its theories adapt as more and more disparate observations are made. Part of this adaptive process probably involves making new assumptions. Do you see a point in the distant future when one of these new assumptions is "there's a God"?

The way you've approached the issue is just one of the many ways available - you've taken the path of miracles where you rely on the scientifically inexplicable as evidence for God. However, if you look at the scientific community the way some of them strengthen their belief in God is through discovering, understanding the laws which govern the universe i.e. the scientist's route to God is built of the scientifically explicable.

As you'll notice these two ways of bolstering faith in a deity are poles apart. In fact they seem even outright contradictory. What do you make of that?

"Motive is the beginning of all desires" said Andrew Carnegie to Napoleon Hill. Explains religion even better than Freud did

substantivalism

Thank you very much for your extensive analysis. It is much appreciated.

"The nature of reality or the nature of anything is inherently unknowable as the only things we have access to are our sensory perceptions and the pragmatic epistemological idealism we would use to then analyze said perceptions or abstract from them.” substantivalism
It seems to me that being so strict about what it means to know is counterproductive. Despite our limitations it is very useful to arrive at an understanding of any process knowing that that understanding may need to be modified as more information becomes available. To simply say that something is unknowable is to abandon the search for truth. Although truth is absolute, knowledge is graded.
.” I'll also note that energy is obviously a purely mathematical entity especially since (via Noether's theorem) we only get energy conservation from our laws if the laws in question are mathematically time translation invariant, energy here being some mathematical entity that is conserved.” substantivalism
The problem with mathematical models of real systems is that they often do not include all aspects of the system. Noether's theorem does not apply to dissipative systems and that aspect of dissipation is a critical property of the universe. I must disagree that energy is a purely mathematical entity as this statement seems to me to imply that it is theoretical and not real.
“H3: Physics (nor any other philosophical speculation) falls by the wayside if it seeks to establish or explain the nature of our experiences (an issue in its own right) and rather physics creates predictable models upon which to map reality.” substantivalism
It seems to me that H3 has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Please enlighten me.
“Yes, these explanations are in the realm of science fiction just as much as this interpretation (the ex nihilo one) of the big bang theory is. Every scientist/physicists who are atheist/theist have regarded the description that general relativity gives of reality as incomplete and in need of amending meaning any interpretation of spacetime/matter beginning 13.8 billion years ago….” substantivalism
Regardless of the incompleteness of existing theories when applied to the extreme conditions present in the very early universe, the evidence for the extreme conditions in that early universe is extremely strong. The backward extrapolation leads to a singularity beyond which is unknown territory. The logical conclusions are either the moment of creation or some process totally outside known science. Creation from nothing by God is not a problem…not science fiction.
“There is no reason these fundamental constants should be the way they are as far as were aware (we haven't discovered it yet if there is one) but there also isn't any reason that such fundamental constants could have been one of infinitely many others/a finite set or this is the only truly possible universe to exist (speaking about metaphysical/nomological possibilities and not conceptual ones)……” substantivalism
If a fundamental constant, such as the gravitational constant, could have a continuum of values then there can be an infinite number of possible values. If the correct value is to be obtained at random, without any intelligence, one needs to propose an infinite number of universes each with a different value of G for one of these to have the correct value. Since there are many fundamental constants, to generate by random chance the correct set of values (as these are interdependent in terms of overall outcome) again we need an infinite number of trials. Our universe would have to be one of a very very small number with one of the correct set of values that would result in a universe that would produce intelligent life. All the failed universes would need to somehow exist. These are all undetectable and unverifiable parameters in a rather unattractive theory.
“Well in my eyes physics nor philosophy where ever "explain" (define this term) these aspects of our world if at best we only ever know that they exist and all other bridges of investigation have burned down you have to be realistic or become comfortable with not knowing.” substantivalism
I am using “explain” in the sense of common usage…to state why things are as they are. Why is the universe so finely tuned to result in the formation of intelligent life and yet it will not reach some steady state where life can exist but rather end up totally dead. In my mind the best explanation is that God created it as such because this is our temporary home. Of course, that is an explanation that strict materialistic science cannot convey.
“Though, when it comes to the second law of thermodynamics and then intermix that with quantum mechanics you can get momentary as well as unlikely but not impossible reversals of thermodynamics. Under certain quantum theories given an un-ending future no matter how unlikely the possibility sooner or later you could have a spontaneous reversal of thermodynamics resulting in, yes, a new big bang. If you wanted to get at what the best descriptions of how our universe works we would need to incorporate quantum mechanics which does possess such violations on smaller scales as well as theoretical ones (via the same model) on much larger scales.” substantivalism
In fact, only very small scale “reversals” are possible. It’s more that individual elements in the system can probabilistically move to higher energy states transiently even though the overall population must follow the thermodynamically determined direction. Clearly the universe is a very large population of fundamental particles and it continues to proceed as determined by thermodynamics. In this universe entropy must increase. There is no new big bang in reality.
“You have a burden of proof and now you must respect such a burden by first defining what a god is and how you know this particular being exists. Then go into how this god concept can give us a predictively successful model of reality that is better than any given previous.” substantivalism
Materialistic science alone cannot go any further. Because of our severe limitations in our ability to gain knowledge (as you as so well stated) we cannot have any information about God except what is revealed by God.
“Also, on the "thousands of skeptical observers" if you are talking about the miracle of Fatima no other person/scientist on earth noticed any changes in the suns positions (especially gravitationally) nor did anyone else report it as such doing rather strange behaviors but if you are talking about Jesus performing miracles to thousands in the bible note that the central claim here is that there were thousands (no second hand reports were given) so we cannot know that thousands actually say such an action performed (or that these thousands actually existed).” substantivalism
To be fair and unbiased, the bible is a collection of books. Some are historical, others poetic, others share words of wisdom… The historical books should be treated as any other historical books. They described the events that happened. To discount events that are scientifically impossible is to be biased against the possibility that such events can take place. The descriptions are highly credible as is the skeptical nature of those present. These extraordinary events had such an impact on the culture that some of those are still celebrated today (e.g. Passover). If scientific study leads to the conclusion that the best hypothesis is the existence of God as creator of the universe then one might expect revelation of His existence and actions to influence the social progress. Setting the correct initial conditions and properties of the universe were very likely sufficient to eventually produce intelligent life but then knowledge of God and of the purpose of existence had to be revealed.

So much more can be said. In my humble opinion this is not a serious conversation. — JerseyFlight

It could perhaps be a serious conversation if you wished to challenge your own faith in reason in the same manner you asked the Christian author to do.

If the complaint is that science or physics fails to explain, then one's idea of God (posited as explanation) must do, in exactly the same way, what science and physics failed to do. If this is not the case then one has equivocated on the term. So much more can be said. In my humble opinion this is not a serious conversation. — JerseyFlight

Amen, amen! Welcome to TPF

In my humble opinion this is not a serious conversation. — JerseyFlight

And yet it goes on and on. My humble opinion is that it's futile to argue that reason or science establishes there is a deity, and frankly that belief in one is something evoked (brought to mind) rather than established. I have a certain fondness for C.S. Peirce's "musement" approach to the issue, though I'm not sure I understand it. I'm a sort of pantheist in a sort of Stoic sense, but wouldn't dream of contending that I could demonstrate that a deity exists. I confess I wish others felt the same way.

Also, why God? Why not Gods? — Gregory

I'll just offer the opinion that multiple "gods" is a suitable explanation for Multiverses, but not for a Universe. :smile:

You are not a philosopher and you have no comprehension of the logical alternatives to believing in bodyless supernaturals

I'll just offer the opinion that multiple "gods" is a suitable explanation for Multiverses, but not for a Universe. — Gnomon

That's one of Aquinas's argument. "One world, therefore one God" basically. I don't find it convincing at all, especially considering that the Trinity muddles the whole question (is the Son our father too?)

Amen, amen! Welcome to TPF — 180 Proof

We'll see how well he'll hold up under my scrutiny. Like you, I hope he doesn't fold under pressure :snicker:

I don't find it convincing at all, especially considering that the Trinity muddles the whole question (is the Son our father too?) — Gregory

Why, the Trinity is no problem at all. Pater, et filius et Spiritus Sanctus are merely three divine persons all having the same substance. The persons are distinct, but not the substance. The persons answer the question who is God, but the substance determines what is God.

So, God the Son is the Jesus person; God the Holy Spirit is the dove person (a very special dove, though) and God the Father is the person with the white beard. That's who they are. But what they are is God.

I'm trying to work out a sort of "who's on first?" routine with this which I'm sure will make things clearer.

I just got done attempting to discuss something very close to this thread post with a Christian author. Surprise surprise, trained at the University of Notre Dame, the distinguished fella ran away. He would not shoulder his burden of proof, namely because he sensed where it might lead, and he wanted to keep hold of his happy idea of God. When Marco says, "The existence of God naturally explains all these and gives a purpose to existence." He has equivocated on the word "explains." Therefore, I advise all serious thinkers to depart from this conversation and move onto things that matter. If the complaint is that science or physics fails to explain, then one's idea of God (posited as explanation) must do, in exactly the same way, what science and physics failed to do. If this is not the case then one has equivocated on the term. So much more can be said. In my humble opinion this is not a serious conversation. — JerseyFlight

You really haven't stated an argument with any sufficient details. Online forums are filled with stupid notions and good notiions all the time, why should we just take it on faith that you are right that this is a stupid topic? What was the general conversation with that Christian Author?

As I see it, science is concerned with primitive realities. Matter is primitive and so is much of mathematics. It is naive to think that the science of the primitive could answer questions concerning higher things: art, religion, consciousness, God, creativity, emotion, music, literature... these things are far beyond science. Trying to reduce these things to scientific 'proofs' is like trying to reduce oil painting to the chemistry of pigments or reduce music to an analysis of the sine wave.

It this respect it is unfair to ask for proof and unrealistic to try to limit knowledge to things that can be 'proved' because proof almost always concerns primitive things. If our world view is to be limited to provable things then our world view will be wrong because much of reality cannot be proved in this primitive way (if you have a thought can you prove you had it? can someone prove you did not have it? Thought is the source of much of the world we live in and is, in many respects, more potent than physical energy or matter)

The question about God being an explanation comes down to the opinion that 'God' is the most convincing explanation for the world.

Arguing about the reality of God within the context of religion is fraught with all kinds of complications. Better to argue in terms of God as the source of the world and not complicate it with particular religious viewpoints.

It is naive to think that the science of the primitive could answer questions concerning higher things — EnPassant

Did you just assert the general existence of "higher things?" Well this is certainly proof of a strong, Primate imagination.