Part 2 of Scientific Evidence of God

You could have just posted "I dont want to answer that question", you know.

 

Reminds me of the time Incorp was claiming that because the symbols for numbers were chosen arbitrarily that the results from the use of a ruler were arbitrary.

 

Science & reason vs. atheism

Some more arguments for the existence Of God:

Teleological arguments

*What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”?

*Why is the universe so beautiful? If you don't believe in Design you think the universe is a random mess, and how can a random mess be beautiful?

*Why can the physical world be described by elegant equations? Here's John Polkinghorne: “We are so familiar with the fact that we can understand the world that most of the time we take it for granted. It is what makes science possible. Yet it could have been otherwise. The universe might have been a disorderly chaos rather than an orderly cosmos."

Cosmological argument

[video=youtube;WQXmLI6VAwc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQXmLI6VAwc[/video]

Other

Why should we discard the testimony of billions who pray and think they have encountered God?

 

That makes no sense since our decision to measure time from the Big Bang is arbitrary. "Time" does not objectively exist.

Furthermore, the scientific timeline starts AFTER the Big Bang already started. We have no way of knowing what came before that point and cannot say that the universe and time began then.

 

Please note that, while it does not in and of itself invalidate any of the things you posted, what you did post there was neither scientific, nor evidence.

 

Answering "fine tuning":

If you came across a pothole in the road that was filled to the brim with water, would you assume that the pothole was created with that shape, depth, etc. to hold that specific quantity of water and that it must have been "fine tuned" for water holding, or would you assume that the water conformed to the shape of the pothole?

Answer cosmological arguments:

Anything that relies on arguing about a first cause assumes that nature shows linear cause to effect. It doesn't. Nature shows constant never ending cycles in which all causes are effects and all effects are also causes. Furthermore, the inability for matter/energy to be created or destroyed could mean that the universe has always been here and thus needs no "First Cause".

Addressing you argument from popularity fallacy:

When all those billions present contradictory and often mutually exclusive accounts of the supposed "god" they are communicating with, why should we consider their testimony worthwhile?

Furthermore, just because large amounts of people believe something, that does no make it true.

Also, "elegant" and "beautiful" are entirely subjective concepts with no basis to be in this discussion.

 

?

"God can't simply observe the unobserved if he has been observing forever in all directions of time, space,"...

 

By the way, since iamkurtz seems to be back again after another ban, perhaps he can finally tell me what he thought I was talking about in the first thread of this series when I said " it's plagued by assumptions, both written and unwritten. But primarily, it's a dishonest bait-and-switch, conflating evolution with the big bang." (http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?p=1063797386#post1063797386)

After all, you said "instead of responding to the materiel, you went after me" (http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?p=1063799751#post1063799751), and have not yet admitted that was a mistake.

All I'm trying to do is quantify just how long it will take for you to be honest and admit to being mistaken about this trivially unimportant thing, since then it will give everyone a means to judge just how long it will take for you to be honest about much more important things.

 

Be more "scientific" and accept the prime concept of CI, as has most Physicists today:

Acceptance among physicists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists. Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s,[22] according to a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,[23] the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists.

 

I am certain you see no contradiction here, though by your own words, there is.

 

Acceptance among physicists
Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists. Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s,[22] according to a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,[23] the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

 

You're dancing around the point. The same point I have been making, and you avoided it from me too. If God observes everything, then there can be no uncertainty. There can be no wave function. There can be no collapse.

Anywhere.

Ever.

 

"normal standards"? What are 'normal standards'? Who established what is 'normal' and who wrote the parameters of that 'standard'? It has happened on a number of occasions on this forum. I am not obligated to divulge the nature of those events nor am I obligated to disclose who that/those other posters are.

 

There is no contradiction. If you are going to talk about time as if it is a thing, know that it does not objectively exist, that does not mean that you can't talk about practical applications of a subjective timeline.

 

'normal standards' = accepted scientific evidence that has been well tested by many individuals.

Evolution is a prime example. Evolution has been test extensively and has been accepted by 99.8% of all biologist - the very people who WORK everyday in this field. Key word being 'tested'. Yet, no matter the evidence that is present to you, all you come back with "not evidence to compel my mind" nonsense. This only shows that your only objective on this forum is too disrupt the form and exchanges of ideas.

 

rofl. care to include the last part of that quote where it says ".....pretime,prespace" aka before space time. i see you deliberately left that out in order to avoid addressing the point. Care to address the paradox you've created? how can an unobserved form exist to be observed if there's an omniscient, omnipresent god?

 

You just made those expression up and they do not exist.

Space ONLY appears as a requirement to hold the Matter which is created, while Time is a non-vector Scaler entity moving in only one direction.

 

That was not my quote to which you are referring to here.
The quote marks referred to what krunkskimo had said in his comments to me above.

I DID tell you that reality does NOT observe anything.

Reality is merely the Force behind the next stage of reality, which will unfold under the Law of Probability.

 

and pre space-time would be void of matter or who knows as we cant know (god would). Care to address the paradox you've created? how can an unobserved form exist to be observed if there's an omniscient, omnipresent god?

 

Do you have some science which says this...?

Space/time exists and was described by Einstein.

 

You fellows do NOT need to accept the science, that an Observer was required to collapse the initial wave Functions that formed the universe, but that science is the mist accepted and taught facts in Quantum Physics.

Pretending that you can discredit or ignore the science does not mean intelligent discussion should continue here on this OP:

"Scientific Evidence of God" is found in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

So if we can "prove" that God exists.....



what's the purpose of "faith"?

 

But the starting point is entirely arbitrary since we cannot see any further back than a point after the universe already existed. That makes it a subjective measurement.

 

Your point being what? That you consistently fail to comprehend the interpretation itself and continual demonstrate an erroneous and superficial understanding of quantum theory?

 

again. how can an initial unobserved wave function that needed to be observed for the formation exist with an omnipresent omnipresent god. If there's a god no form could ever exist I'm not pretending to ignore or discredit science, just your theory that it proves there's a god.