Prove that God doesn't exist.

[ArmChair General]

You should know that the rebound theory has been discounted from several sources. The Big Bang was a one way event and has been demonstrated as impossible for the reverse (the rebound) to occur.

This effectively rules out reincarnation, prior universes and future universes.

Sure, as with all scientific theorys there are its proponents and opponents. Thats whats so great about science.

Though it seems to me, that to make the unjustified leap, without any evidence, that it just had to be a creator who started it all, is quite a display of intellectual dishonesty.

As to evidence for God, the Big bang is one of the strongest. If the force of the Big Bang explosion had been only slightly greater, no solid matter formation would have been possible. The force would have scattered the atoms too far apart to coalesce. If the force had been only slightly less, gravity would have pulled everything back to the singularity and no universe would have been formed.

What most do not realize is how fine this line between too much force and too little actually is. The odds of the Big Bang force of explosion being exactly right is one chance out of 10 to the 120th power. This is 1 chance out of 10 followed by 120 zeroes.

To rule God out of any equation involving origins results in one being forced to believe in unrealistic and astronomical improbabilities.

Actually, a guy named Martin Bojowald, an assistant professor of physics at Penn State University, may have broken through this barrier for the first time. He is working on a theory called Loop Quantum Gravity, and it combines relativity and quantum mechanics. Using this new math, something amazing happens: at T=0, the volume of the Universe is not zero, and the density is not infinite.

In other words, the math still works, even at The Big Moment.

Loop Quantum Gravity has been around a while, but Bojowald appears to have simplified it, using different mathematical terminology. This allows solutions to be determined for what was, before, an intractable problem.

Unfortunately, you have to purchase access to read the actual paper.

But what’s perhaps most exciting about these theories, is that they make predictions, predictions which can be verified or falsified based on observations. These are delicate experiments to be sure, but some will be possible to perform in just the next few years (for example, different cosmological origin theories predict different behaviors for the Universe at very early times, and these would imprint themselves on objects which can be observed).

We are finding, as we progress and learn about reality, there is just no place left for God.

 

[numinus]

Sure, as with all scientific theorys there are its proponents and opponents. Thats whats so great about science.

Though it seems to me, that to make the unjustified leap, without any evidence, that it just had to be a creator who started it all, is quite a display of intellectual dishonesty.




Actually, a guy named Martin Bojowald, an assistant professor of physics at Penn State University, may have broken through this barrier for the first time. He is working on a theory called Loop Quantum Gravity, and it combines relativity and quantum mechanics. Using this new math, something amazing happens: at T=0, the volume of the Universe is not zero, and the density is not infinite.

In other words, the math still works, even at The Big Moment.

Loop Quantum Gravity has been around a while, but Bojowald appears to have simplified it, using different mathematical terminology. This allows solutions to be determined for what was, before, an intractable problem.

Unfortunately, you have to purchase access to read the actual paper.

But what’s perhaps most exciting about these theories, is that they make predictions, predictions which can be verified or falsified based on observations. These are delicate experiments to be sure, but some will be possible to perform in just the next few years (for example, different cosmological origin theories predict different behaviors for the Universe at very early times, and these would imprint themselves on objects which can be observed).

We are finding, as we progress and learn about reality, there is just no place left for God.

You have been mislead.

Gravity is NOT (yet) quantized.

The problem with quantum gravity is that one need assume thresholds (planck time, lenght and energy) that are impervious to relativity. But we know, both mathematically and experimentally, that time lenght and energy are functional relations of gravity itself.

And when one assumes this, one, in fact, assumes an ABSOLUTE reference frame - in direct contradiction to special and general relativity.

What exactly do you think this means?

Merely a radical reformulation of EVERYTHING dependent on the lorentz invariance, for starters.

And what might those be?

ALL the known physical laws today.

 

[ArmChair General]

You have been mislead.

Quite the opposite actually.

Gravity is NOT (yet) quantized.

Did you even read what I posted? I did not claim it had been, yet.

The problem with quantum gravity is that one need assume thresholds (planck time, lenght and energy) that are impervious to relativity. But we know, both mathematically and experimentally, that time lenght and energy are functional relations of gravity itself.

And when one assumes this, one, in fact, assumes an ABSOLUTE reference frame - in direct contradiction to special and general relativity.

What exactly do you think this means?

Merely a radical reformulation of EVERYTHING dependent on the lorentz invariance, for starters.

And what might those be?

ALL the known physical laws today.

I've not seen such verbal sophistry in years. well done.

 

[numinus]

Quite the opposite actually.

So, you have NOT been mislead?

Did you even read what I posted? I did not claim it had been, yet.

So why bring something as 'theoretical' as loop quantum gravity in the debate table?

Not to mention the fact that there is NO cosmological model based on loop quantum gravity to begin with?

Truth is, the stringy people (string theorists), the bitter rivals of the loopy people (loop quantum gravity theorists) have come up with an artistically and elegantly contrived mathematics involving 11 dimensions.

The problem is, its all art.

I've not seen such verbal sophistry in years. well done.

Then you wouldn't mind telling me where I said something false, now, would you?

 

[ArmChair General]

So why bring something as 'theoretical' as loop quantum gravity in the debate table?

Because as I stated, Martin Bojowald, has worked out a theory that would combine both relativity and quantum mechanics. The great thing about science, is that it can be tested. It can be falsified. And in the next few years, we should be able to do just that with his theory.

Not to mention the fact that there is NO cosmological model based on loop quantum gravity to begin with?

What Bojowald’s work does, as I understand it is simplify the math enough to be able to trace some properties of the Universe backwards, right down to T=0, which he calls the Big Bounce. The previous Universe collapsed down, and "bounced" outward again, forming our Universe. No doubt the physical aspects of this previous Universe were somewhat different; the quantum uncertainties at the moment of bounce would ensure that. It may have been much like ours, or it may have been quite alien. In his equations, it’s the volume of that previous Universe that cannot be determined. How big was it? It may literally be impossible to ever know.

In a sense, this uncertainty wipes the slate clean after a Universe crunches back down.

Truth is, the stringy people (string theorists), the bitter rivals of the loopy people (loop quantum gravity theorists) have come up with an artistically and elegantly contrived mathematics involving 11 dimensions.

The problem is, its all art.

But it’s fascinating, and provides a glimpse into the future of cosmology, where we may not be limited by the one singular Universe in which we live.

The point im making, is that there are several competing theorys, which can be can be verified or falsified based on observations, because they make predictions. It amuses me, that you find such theorys implausible, yet have no problem ending an infinite regress by planting a God, that can'not be proven in any way. As if that were somehow a better more reasonable solution. Because of course this begs the question, if God created the universe, then what created God?

Another theory, called Brane Theory, is similar it posits that there are other Universes as well, and they, well, they bounce back and forth, colliding every few hundred billion or trillion years. And that’s not even the weird part of brane theory… it might be able to explain dark matter and dark energy, and why our Universe appears to be accelerating. It’s well beyond what I can write here.

 

[ArmChair General]

By the way, people should check out creationist linguistics.

 

[numinus]

Because as I stated, Martin Bojowald, has worked out a theory that would combine both relativity and quantum mechanics. The great thing about science, is that it can be tested. It can be falsified. And in the next few years, we should be able to do just that with his theory.

As I said, gravity is NOT quantized.

A combination of relativity and quantum mechanics, or a unified theory of everything, assumes that there are elementary particles of gravity (gravitons) in the same way that there are elementary particles of mass/energy (photons) and that both are governed by a single physical law.

To say that quantum loop theory can be tested is to assume that the gravity necessary to warp space and time can be artificially generated, or that we have a way to observe infinitessimally small quantities like the planck time, planck lenght and planck energy - the threshold within which the theory of quantum gravity have any predictive effect.

What Bojowald’s work does, as I understand it is simplify the math enough to be able to trace some properties of the Universe backwards, right down to T=0, which he calls the Big Bounce. The previous Universe collapsed down, and "bounced" outward again, forming our Universe. No doubt the physical aspects of this previous Universe were somewhat different; the quantum uncertainties at the moment of bounce would ensure that. It may have been much like ours, or it may have been quite alien. In his equations, it’s the volume of that previous Universe that cannot be determined. How big was it? It may literally be impossible to ever know.

I don't think you understand.

To say that there is a mathematical model that governs the big bang itself is ludicrous.

The planck time (1 second = 1.855x10^43) is the closest that theoretical physics has gone to the big bang because any closer to this, general relativity BREAKS DOWN into a singularity.

In a sense, this uncertainty wipes the slate clean after a Universe crunches back down.

The problem with the big bounce is that it says NOTHING about horizon or homogeneity.

Unlike inflation, which at least had the audacity to assume that the rate of expansion of the infant universe exceeded the speed of light more than a thousand times over - thereby ensuring a universe that is connected and homogenous.

Although how this affects the invariance of c is anybody's guess.

But it’s fascinating, and provides a glimpse into the future of cosmology, where we may not be limited by the one singular Universe in which we live.

But it ends up exactly that - merely fascinating.

The point im making, is that there are several competing theorys, which can be can be verified or falsified based on observations, because they make predictions.

How can you observe a space-time singularity - a phenomenon that has no length, no time and infinite mass, eh?

At the heart of ALL cosmological models is such a SINGULARITY.

It amuses me, that you find such theorys implausible, yet have no problem ending an infinite regress by planting a God, that can'not be proven in any way.

Which is EXACTLY how science proposes to end the SAME inifnite regress - via a space-time singularity.

And yet, you do not find yourself amusing for thinking this way, do you?

I thought as much.

As if that were somehow a better more reasonable solution.

It is better in that it makes no apologies for its INEVITABLE conclusion.

That all contingent beings must have a cause.

That an infinite chain of causality is impossible.

That there must be a first cause that is both infinite and incontingent.

Because of course this begs the question, if God created the universe, then what created God?

Something that is incontingent causes itself.

Another theory, called Brane Theory, is similar it posits that there are other Universes as well, and they, well, they bounce back and forth, colliding every few hundred billion or trillion years. And that’s not even the weird part of brane theory… it might be able to explain dark matter and dark energy, and why our Universe appears to be accelerating. It’s well beyond what I can write here.

Dark energy is merely the energy density of vacuum and represents the outward (tension) exerted by vacuum against the inward pull of gravity. Einstein had this in mind when he included the cosmological constant 'fudge factor' in his field equation, and which he referred to as his 'greatest blunder'.


Of course, interest in the cosmological constant, lambda, has been revived due to hubble's observation of an expanding universe. It is the cornerstone of the inflationary model and is being used to explain the horizon and homogeneity problems in cosmology.

The thing is that lambda itself is a problem. With it, we would have a universe with nothing but lambda well before the 15 billion-year estimate of the the universe's age.

 

[ArmChair General]

Which is EXACTLY how science proposes to end the SAME inifnite regress - via a space-time singularity.

Not all science. You assume that the Big Bang singularity is a past boundary to the entire universe, one that must somehow be smoothed out to make sense of the pre-Bang universe. But the Bang isn’t all that different from future singularities, of the type we’re familiar with from black holes. We don’t really know what’s going on at black-hole singularities, either, but that doesn’t stop us from making sense of what happens from the outside. A black hole forms, settles down, Hawking-radiates, and eventually disappears entirely. Something quasi-singular goes on inside, but it’s just a passing phase, with the outside world going on its merry way.

The Big Bang could have very well been like that, but backwards in time. In other words, our observable patch of expanding universe could be some local region that has a singularity (or whatever quantum effects may resolve it) in the past, but is part of a larger space in which many past-going paths don’t hit that singularity.

There was some early work on the idea by Farhi, Guth and Guven, as well as Fischler, Morgan and Polchinski, which has been followed up more recently by Aguirre and Johnson.

And yet, you do not find yourself amusing for thinking this way, do you?

I thought as much.

Actually, I've questioned modern science for many of the reasons you've brought up. Though, I think you might not have brought it back to why it fails us in this regards. Obviously appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better than the intelligent designer argument. Not to mention that it completely falls short of a complete explanation of existence. For a start, there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and allocate bylaws to them. This process demands its own laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the 'meta-laws' of the multiverse.
I beileve that science in this regards, actually fails us. Because in this area, it seems that both religion and science appeal to some sort of agency outside the universe to explain things.

This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law has its origins in theology. The idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws comes straight out of monotheism, which was the dominant influence in Europe at the time science as we know it was being formulated by Isaac Newton and his buddies. Just another way religion has held back scientific progress. Just as you present God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, physicists envisage their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. Furthermore, you believe the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case. Correspondingly, physicists declare that the universe is governed by eternal laws, but the laws remain impervious to events in the universe.

I think this entire line of reasoning is now outdated and simplistic. We will never fully explain the world by appealing to something outside it that must simply be accepted on faith, be it an unexplained God or an unexplained set of mathematical laws. Can we do better? Yes, but only by relinquishing the traditional idea of physical laws as fixed, perfect relationships.

It is better in that it makes no apologies for its INEVITABLE conclusion.

You mean, because its easier.

That all contingent beings must have a cause.

That an infinite chain of causality is impossible.

That there must be a first cause that is both infinite and incontingent.

Something that is incontingent causes itself.

Your verbal sophistry continues to amaze me.

 

[numinus]

Not all science. You assume that the Big Bang singularity is a past boundary to the entire universe, one that must somehow be smoothed out to make sense of the pre-Bang universe. But the Bang isn’t all that different from future singularities, of the type we’re familiar with from black holes. We don’t really know what’s going on at black-hole singularities, either, but that doesn’t stop us from making sense of what happens from the outside. A black hole forms, settles down, Hawking-radiates, and eventually disappears entirely. Something quasi-singular goes on inside, but it’s just a passing phase, with the outside world going on its merry way.

The Big Bang could have very well been like that, but backwards in time. In other words, our observable patch of expanding universe could be some local region that has a singularity (or whatever quantum effects may resolve it) in the past, but is part of a larger space in which many past-going paths don’t hit that singularity.

Whose spouting sophistry now, eh?

The thing is, a physical cosmological model that involves 'something' behaving in a particular way 'somehow' in 'someplace' beyond our common-sense world could very well answer ANYTHING.

And local singularites like black holes do NOT represent the space-time singularity being contemplated in cosmology, not by a long shot.

There was some early work on the idea by Farhi, Guth and Guven, as well as Fischler, Morgan and Polchinski, which has been followed up more recently by Aguirre and Johnson.

Inflation is guth's seminal work, fyi.

It makes use of particle physics to bring a fresh perspective to cosmology. While it is arguably the most accepted cosmological model today, it is so by DEFAULT.

Actually, I've questioned modern science for many of the reasons you've brought up. Though, I think you might not have brought it back to why it fails us in this regards. Obviously appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better than the intelligent designer argument. Not to mention that it completely falls short of a complete explanation of existence. For a start, there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and allocate bylaws to them. This process demands its own laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the 'meta-laws' of the multiverse.
I beileve that science in this regards, actually fails us. Because in this area, it seems that both religion and science appeal to some sort of agency outside the universe to explain things.

It is refreshing for someone to understand the point raised for a change.

I do not think it is a failure on the part of science, merely its inherent limitations.

Science is a materialist, empiricist philosophical conception with a rigorous set of methodology. The basic tenet of this philosophical conception - ALL MATERIAL PHENOMENON HAVE ONLY MATERIAL CAUSES.

And you don't need cosmology to realize the basic frailty of this postulate. There are countless human experiences that are not empirically quantifiable and are not the mechanistic result of some material cause.

This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law has its origins in theology. The idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws comes straight out of monotheism, which was the dominant influence in Europe at the time science as we know it was being formulated by Isaac Newton and his buddies. Just another way religion has held back scientific progress. Just as you present God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, physicists envisage their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. Furthermore, you believe the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case. Correspondingly, physicists declare that the universe is governed by eternal laws, but the laws remain impervious to events in the universe.

You give religion too much credit.

The philosophical basis of christianity does not derive from the gospels - but in hellenistic philosophy of the west.

The notion of the immutability of physical laws are attributable to the platonic and aristotlean schools of thought - not jesus, nor judaism.

I think this entire line of reasoning is now outdated and simplistic. We will never fully explain the world by appealing to something outside it that must simply be accepted on faith, be it an unexplained God or an unexplained set of mathematical laws. Can we do better? Yes, but only by relinquishing the traditional idea of physical laws as fixed, perfect relationships.

Outdated, you say?

No human knowledge can proceed without the benefit of axioms or postulate. Not logic, nor mathematics. Certainly not the natural sciences.

The difference between euclidean and non-euclidean geometry rests on a SINGLE postulate, fyi.

You mean, because its easier.

Complexity in a theory is a sure sign of bs, in my opinion.

The scientific precept ockham's razor says as much.

Your verbal sophistry continues to amaze me.

I am flattered that you attribute the cosmological argument to me. Unfortunately, I must decline the honor.

It is, however, couched as a FORMAL ARGUMENT.

While you might consider it mere sophistry, you really need to point out its fallacy for you to dismiss it off-hand.

 

[invest07]

coyote
How can you believe in reincarnation if you can't prove it? How can you even consider it a possibility if it can't be proven?
Clearly you don't believe in God, whose existence can't be proven or disproven by science. So why is reincarnation (equally undemonstrable) acceptable?

 

[invest07]

numinus

"No human knowledge can proceed without the benefit of axioms or postulate. Not logic, nor mathematics. Certainly not the natural sciences."

You are exactly right. Most people start out with presuppositions but are unaware that that is their starting point. Evolution is a great example of this. Evolution is assumed to be correct and therefore all data must be interpreted in accordance with the presupposition of evolution.

Should the presupposition prove to be erroneous, the data/observation do not change. The data does not support any specific theory. It is human interpretation of data/observations that support theories.

If you assume there is no God, you must interpret any data naturalistically, so as the exclude the existence of God. Since the existence of God can't be proven or disproven, by science, both conditions are equally unknown in the eyes of science. A true scientist knows this and understands that automatically excluding one condition from a theory has the potential to result in the entire tehory be discredited should any portion be discredited.

Presupposions, axioms, undemonstrable assumptions, all affect one's interpretation of data.

My interpretation of the Big Bang is that it may very well be true although it can't be proven, and that conditions of the Big Bang were so finely tuned as to require some form of intelligence.

 

[9sublime]

My father always asks a good question... if the Christian God is real... why leave people in doubt? At least offer them the choice of Christianity or atheism, rather than letting people get brainwashed from birth into another religion, thus not giving them a chance of salvation.

 

[invest07]

9sublime
The concept is called "free will". You either believe or you don't. The decision is yours and yours alone. You will be required to take personal responsibility for your decision.
What could be fairer?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Does Creator = God?

Who knows? It's an issue of definition, the Mormons believe in a lot of minor creative entities.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

9sublime
The concept is called "free will". You either believe or you don't. The decision is yours and yours alone. You will be required to take personal responsibility for your decision.
What could be fairer?

Then why can't homosexual and transsexaul people have equal standing under the law. What happened to fairness and personal responsibility and making one's own decisions?