Science 'versus' God?

[austintorn@aol.com]

——————>

Let’s look, for a change, one that will not last long, at one of the ‘reasons’ for God, usually the last resource of a theist whose other arguments fail, but see, amazingly, that it transforms into a reason against God, as is often the case for a idea just imagined on faith, as God is. This will be the question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”.

This could also be a tiny slight flavored taste of a hint of the power and reach of even one little aspect of the disproof of God…perhaps one not even needed but for definitions, some overkill or slight overlap…for who knows yet of the magnitude of the total proof made of so many proofs coming in upteen major areas and eventually covering every area and question imaginable… the absolute finding of natural events everywhere with no supernatural influence occurring anywhere at any time. Even one little tiny miracle would upset the apple cart, but none will be found anywhere at any time, including the largest miracle, the origin of the universe, about which I will just say a little bit before going on to ‘Why there is something rather than nothing?’.

So, on the other hand, if God were to be proved, then we should find an origin of the universe that could not have happened naturally, that is, a direct empirical confirmation that a miracle was necessary in order to bring the universe into existence, such as the non-conservation of energy or such, but, alas, the bulk of that will have to wait, but again, it is only one area of the proof, albeit a large one, and, again, alas, this portion of the proof is for later on. See, we even have a way to prove some supernatural happenings! But, then again, if we can’t, then the natural is true.


For now:

(this may also relate to Graybeard’s postings elsewhere)

Philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question:

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

The question presumes that ‘nothing’ is a more natural state of affairs and so, how, really, then, could there be an ‘unlikely’ something. Only from God?

No, for this is stated backwards, for we will see that something is indeed the natural state. Furthermore, we will see that it needs no cause.

‘Nothing’ is a state that is the simplest of all conceivable states.

Now, something is not just favored over ‘nothing’ because there are zillions of possible ways to have something and only one way for there to be ‘nothing’. The case is much stronger. There has to be something and we shall see why.

We observe in our universe that simplicity begets complexity, which begets more, and so forth. Nature builds complex structures by processes of self-organization. Less structure very often leads to more structure.

Many simple systems are unstable, that is, they have limited lifetimes, for they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy, such as a drop of water freezing in space. Barring cosmic rays, this ‘eternal’ ice would last a very long time. Energy would required to destroy the structure of ice, such as when we use it at room temperature on our warm Earth, the heat melting it into less structure: water.

Now what is it that is as simple as it gets? ‘Nothing’. Therefore, we cannot expect it to be very stable.

In some models of the origin of the universe, the vacuum undergoes a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter. The transition of nothing-to-something is a natural one, not requiring any external agent or Agent.

So, why is there something rather than ‘nothing’?

Because ‘nothing’ is unstable.

Something is the more natural state of affairs and is thus much more likely than ‘nothing’.

It would only be an empty universe that would require supernatural intervention—not a full one with something.

Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained.

The fact that we have something is just the what we would expect if there is no God.

[michael turner]

Austin, your premise is incorrect, God is not a theory, God is a belief and that is why accepted establishment will not allow Creation to be taught in school.
It seems to me that
1) if you could have disproved God, you would have.
2). And why bother?
How do you prove that Jesus is not who he said he was, doubting Thomas got shown up. He just about craped his pants!

It takes a less that common sense intelligent person to believe that they can convince people that will strap bombs on their bodies to get laid in paradise. You really think you got a chance?
Good luck with that......

So you have not established that God is a theory, God is a belief, that is why faith comes into play. So if you are characterizing God as a theory and then using the human invention of the self imposed constraints humans place on their own concept, I stop you right now from bait and switching the concept of God, in human terms.

[austintorn@aol.com]

God is a belief and that is why accepted establishment will not allow Creation to be taught in school.

This is true that a belief that is merely a consideration instead of being known and so it shouldn’t be taught in school since it is just a theory. We would no more teach reincarnation either.


1) if you could have disproved God, you would have.

The proof has already begun and will arrive completly.


2). And why bother?

We discussed that.


How do you prove that Jesus is not who he said he was

I will prove that there is no Divinity anywhere.

Even the Jewish, who were there at the time, of whom Jesus was one, fully rejected the notion of his divinity. When ever would a group not totally acclaim the claims of a great one their own?


So you have not established that God is a theory, God is a belief, that is why faith comes into play.

You didn’t read all the posts. A belief in the unknown is a theory. There is no objecive proof of the Theity, which is why it is taken on faith.


You don’t seem to have any faith in the unknown aspects of the full scope of proof yet to come here. It will be visible, unlike angels, souls and so forth. It will be shown that there is no intervention of a Theity, either at the beginning or anytime after.

See dictionary definitions of 'faith', 'theory', 'postulate', 'known', 'facts', 'belief', 'natural', 'supernatural' etc.

[labelwench]

Re: Science 'versus' God?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com
God did offer Adam a more prefect version of a woman, one who would even paint ceilings, cut grass, work on cars, take out the garbage and so forth, but it would have cost Adam an arm and a leg.

So Adam said, "What can I get for just a rib?"

rotflmao ... I've never heard that one before.

cool bananas ... greg

Gentlemen,

May I point out the obvious? Adam obviously negotiated a good bargain, as most of the women I know are capable of all said tasks. Occasionally we have been known to barter our way out of some of the above in exchange for some home-cooking, fortified beverage or certain.....ummmmm... priveleges, shall we say.

Fellas do need something to brag of to the other fellas, after all, and we aim to help you succeed.

However, in the absence of a "handy" man, well, I reckon a girl will just have to roll up her sleeves.

A very good bargain for a rib, I'd say....

Labelwench

[austintorn@aol.com]

Thanks for taking the 'ribbing' well, LabelWench.

I spelled 'perfect' wrong, so even Adam isn't.

I have to go out to the garage to work on my time-machine now.

[melanie]

And I can't go farther because I can't speak for God.

I can only point to God ... Exclaimed the Great Profpat...

[austintorn@aol.com]

"It's God, Jim, but not as we know Her."

[Graybeard]

Hello Greg,
New inflationary theory, attempts also to solve the
Universe independent of three dimensions, correct? But if there is a way to solve it in three dimensions then it collaspes on false premise, I believe.

Hi Michael .... I'm not sure what you mean. Inflationary theory only accounts for the 'moment' of the bang. After that it merges seamlessly into normal big bang theory ? It supplies a better explanation for the arrow of time.

You will have to explain what you mean ?

greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

————>

Matter Created!

Where shall we find, or not, the supernatural. We would find it doing super things that are beyond the natural.

Suppose a new planet appeared all of the sudden between Earth and Mars, let’s say, called ‘Peace’, this would violate energy conservation and could be classified as a supernatural event. By such happenings, whether large or tiny, the disproof of the supernatural would die, or, if we look everywhere and only find the natural, then the disproof lives.

The laws of the conservation of energy and momentum have not changed for four hundred years and have survived every test and challenge. They even hold in the most distant observed galaxy, even in the cosmic microwave background in which case they work for over 13 billion years.

It was once thought that the mass of matter could neither be created nor destroyed, making the origin of the universe an even larger ‘miracle’. However, there is no law of the conservation of mass, since, by Einstein’s E=mcc, matter can be created out of energy and even disappear into energy.

So, now, what is energy? We must still account for its being. Where does energy come from?

A body at rest still contains energy. When it moves, it gains and additional energy of motion called kinetic energy.

Through chemical and nuclear interactions, kinetic energy can be converted into rest energy, which is indeed the generation of mass! The reverse may also happen: mass or rest energy may be converted into kinetic energy. We can run engines with it or blow up a bomb.

So, it’s fine that mass can come from energy, this not violating any law, but, again where does energy come from? God?

The first law of thermodynamics—the conservation of energy—requires that the energy must come from somewhere.

Was the law of conservation of energy violated 13.75123 years ago, at the start of the ‘big bang’, whatever size it was? Nope, observation shows this not to be the case.

Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero.

Stephen Hawking says “…one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the energy represented by matter.”

This shows (and has been shown) that the universe appeared from a state of zero energy, this being, of course, within the unavoidable and small quantum uncertainty.

Quantum uncertainty allows the temporary creation of bubbles of energy, or pairs of particles (such as electron-positron pairs) out of nothing, provided that they disappear in a short time.

The recent ‘inflationary big bang’ definition, showing a zero balance of positive and negative energy, has undergone a number of recent stringent observational tests that would have been sufficient to prove it false. It passed them all.

So, there was no violation of the conservation of energy. No miracle occurred.

Now, of course the disproof does not merely stop here, for there is much to go, as in many new areas and even some overlapping to bolster the other, but, for now, here is a little story of Einstein almost becoming a traffic fatality:

George Gamow told in his book, ‘My World Line’, how he was having a conversation with Albert Einstein while walking through Princeton in the 1940s. Gamow casually mentioned that one of his colleagues [Pascual Jordan] had pointed out to him that according to Einstein's equations a star could be created out of nothing at all, [since at the point zero] because its negative gravitational energy [mass defect] precisely cancels out [is equal to] its positive mass energy [rest mass].

"Einstein stopped in his tracks," says Gamow, "and, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down".

So, anyway, do we still believe that science has nothing to say about God?

Suppose that our mass density measurements of the universe had not turned out to be zero? This would have showed that a miracle occurred—the violation of the law of conservation of energy—and so this would have been a big plus in God’s favor, although not a total confirmation of Her. Yes, ‘God’ could be a woman.


The disproof of the Theity will continue some other time in:

The Very Zero-Time Imprint of God’s Order! Or not.

[Graybeard]

The laws of the conservation of energy and momentum have not changed for four hundred years and have survived every test and challenge.

I think you mean our knowledge of them has not changed, they have been there since they came into being ?

Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero.

Stephen Hawking says “…one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the energy represented by matter.”

And why wasn't this posted in my thread as well ........ ????

cool bananas ... greg