External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

by Tuesday 122 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • lovelylil


    Are you saying that science has figured out how to create life out of nothing? Are you saying that Science has proven exactly how the universe came into existance? If so, I would love to see the proof for this. Because I was just watching a program about the Big bang the other day and the scientific experts on the show said that the "Big Bang" did not explain how the universe came into existence, but explained what happened next, after the universe already began. It explains how it expanded into the universe we now have, not how it all started. They admitted that since the universe was expanding, it had a beginning. But they do not know what caused this beginning and could not know unless they find a way to trace the universe back to its origin. So did they do this between today and a few days ago?

    So my point with adding God like you are saying is this: I am not saying this absolutely proves that God is the cause of the universe's origin, I am saying that since science does not know the "cause", you cannot completely rule God out. Of course Christians believe this God is the God of the Bible but that is a personal belief. Like Sirona pointed out, other people may say it was their God who was the cause. Lilly

  • Qcmbr

    In the double slit photon experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) it is shown that particles exist in a state of superposition (within certain rules a particle exist as a wave exhibiting the potential to exist in many places simultaneously) until it is observed. The act of observation forces the wave to collapse and the particle to exist in one and only one locale.

    If the universe consists of particles then this would argue for an all-seeing god. If the universe exhibits potentiality anywhere then God is not all observing. The double slit experiment proves God is not all-seeing or is not looking right now! But if God was all-seeing that may just preclude free will since how an we fill the role of observer and collapser of potentialities if they are already collapsed (however, I'll step back here as this is a whole new ball game along the lines of 'The Secret' - that you decide what reality occurs..)

    Quantum entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement) shows the interconnected nature of matter regardless of such matters as distance and time. If there was a Big Bang we might assume that all particles were entangled at the beginning (and are in some way still influencing each other - in effect the matter within you is still connected to every other particle on a quantum level?). If God was produced by the universe we must be connected to God. If God is perfect and there is such a concept as imperfection then God cannot be entangled with an imperfect universe (else God is imperfect by association.) Which argues either for an imperfect God or an unentangled God. Incarnations of God as recorded by the world's religions argue for a God associated - not just quantumly - but literally with fallen / imperfect matter. Either way we are left with an imperfect God by interaction with that which is imperfect. Maybe though this is just a misapplication of what perfection means to any God.

    God however finds a comeback as follows: For matter to exist at all (in a manner that can interact and produce not only Big Bang chemistry and physics but ultimately planets and physical life) we are left with the unsettling conclusion that there must be an observer to collapse the universe else it would simply exist as unorganised potential - in effect life cannot proceeed from disordered potential, life can only proceed from conscious observation. Consciousness must preceed matter not vice versa. God must observe but in order for the resultant creation to have free will any God must then cease observing:

    And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good...Therefore the Lord God sent him(man) forth from the garden of Eden.

    So by tortured logic we have a proof of a creative observer God (to create planets etc..) who must then step aside to allow free will (and uncollapsed potentialities to exist.)


  • Shawn10538

    I'm jumping in this one a little late, but you know what they say about atheists, they like to talk about god more than the theists do. I haven't read all the posts, but I'm sure all the old arguments are there in one form or another, so no surprises.

    One thing that Lil said about causation I wanted to comment on. I've actually been meaning to post a thread on causation for awhile. But, causation is often mentioned along the logical fallacy "after than therefore because of." So, just because you felt better after taking a pill, it doesn't mean that you feel better BECAUSE of the pill. It could have been the pill, but then again it could have been something else we don't know about, an unknown variable. I,m not sure this really applies to what you said now that i'm thinking about it. I seemed to have lost my train of thought.

    Oh well, carry on!

  • lovelylil

    Just to be fair, Tuesday and Spook were correct on the first law of thermodynamics, and again, I want to thank both of them for giving me this law to help prove my arguement that "something cannot come from nothing" whether it be energy or matter. So it must have a cause.

    They did a better job of explaining the first law, however they conveniently left out one of the implications of the law they cited. And admittingly, my mistake is that I did a poor job of quoting the law but did give the implication of it which again, I fully understood.

    But in fairness, here is BOTH the law and the implication of the law. taken from here; http://home.earthlink.net/~mflabar/second_law_of_thermodynamics.htm

    Some Implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics:

    Philosophical and Theological

    If there are any scientific laws that have universal acceptance, and universal applicability, they are the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics literally means "energy in action." It is a word with roots that indicate that it has to do with both heat and motion.


    The first law of thermodynamics may be stated thus: "energy can neither be created nor destroyed." This law does not rule out transformations of energy from one form to another, or even transformations of energy to matter, and the reverse, as according to Einstein's E=mc 2 equation. If it is true, it means that neither energy, nor matter, can be created from nothing.

    The second law of thermodynamics is more difficult to state in plain English. Here is an attempt: "In any transformation of energy from one form to another, 'useful' energy is lost." A familiar consequence of that is the fact that much of the energy of automobile engines does not end up in motion, but in overcoming friction. Another is that it is not possible to have a refrigerator, freezer, or air conditioner that merely removes energy from one place to another. In the process of moving energy, each of these actually increases the total heat in the universe, as it uses electricity (or gas, etc.) to do its work, and some of that work is not merely to transfer heat, but to overcome friction. Another consequence is that when light energy is transformed into chemical energy in green plants by photosynthesis, and then to chemical energy in animals that eat green plants, most of the light energy is not actually transformed into chemical energy in animals, but does various "non-useful" things. As a result, meat of all kinds is more expensive than plant food, either in the grocery store, or if you grow your own. To put it another way, you can feed a family on a lot less space, using a garden, than the space required to feed the same family, if they eat only meat.

    Hmm, niether matter or energy can come from nothing. Gee, I wonder who or what could have created the matter and enegry then? Peace, and goodnight all. Lilly

  • Tuesday

    Lil, it's really not that I left out the implications of the law. My quote was directly from wikipedia which I know is not the best source always for a debate principle. So I'll fix it in this post. Now I quote from a university's physics site:


    First Law of Thermodynamics

    The first law of thermodynamics is the application of the conservation of energy principle to heat and thermodynamic processes:

    The first law makes use of the key concepts of internal energy, heat, and system work. It is used extensively in the discussion of heat engines.

    It is typical for chemistry texts to write the first law as ?U=Q+W. It is the same law, of course - the thermodynamic expression of the conservation of energy principle. It is just that W is defined as the work done on the system instead of work done by the system. In the context of physics, the common scenario is one of adding heat to a volume of gas and using the expansion of that gas to do work, as in the pushing down of a piston in an internal combustion engine. In the context of chemical reactions and process, it may be more common to deal with situations where work is done on the system rather than by it.

    The source that you site from


    this is an apologist site, after what you quote he then goes into quoting scripture and talking about the Resurrection. The comment he put in that you bolded and underlined " If it is true, it means that neither energy, nor matter, can be created from nothing" This is an editorial comment on how he interprets the law. The law I'm quoting is simply the law, it does not have any editorial comments about the implications of the law in a religious sense. So I didn't purposely leave out the implications of the law in order to easier prove my point, I simply quoted from an unbiased source. I'm going to go on a limb (which I shouldn't really because I haven't read the source of this website's information but I will anyway) that Kenneth Krane's book that he sites as a source doesn't go into the implications of the law religiously, it more than likely just tells about the Law. I'm not saying your source should be totally discounted as I do see that he does have a science background, but I do question his motives in writing about the law.


    This is really interesting and I would love to read more. Please post more insight on these subjects you have quoted. I do find the dichotomy you presented interesting to explore further into. Could you possibly post some more links about the laws you used here? Thanks so much.

  • Spook

    Lovelylil made a series of two rejoinders to me, with a third partially encorporating me. She began as follows:

    I was not speaking about "IQ", I was abreviating the words "I Question" Hence the IQ. In your rush to twist my words out of context, you are trying to have me say things I am not saying.

    To the fairness of the reader I will point out my use of relatively neutral language and discussion confined to the ideas expressed toward my comments only. Assumptions about my intentions in this discourse beyond my statements are misdirected. That said, I retract the brief mention of IQ versus I Q as a misreading of the abbreviation and syntax of the intention in her sentence. In a tit-for-tat, I return to my clearly stated message in response to the misnomer of "natural laws" which has so-far remained unaddressed. Lovelylil appealed again to the error of assuming that because a belief is possible to have it is therefore at least equally as possible to be true. She referenced the claims of scientists who have made statements reconciling these ideas:

    Many in the scientific community have been able to reconcile belief in a God and science. So to say I do not know what is going on in the scientific community is your opinion only.

    It's worth noting that my comments on consensibility were particular to the points Lovelylil had raised. If she is saying in the above that the affirmative notion of God is nonconcensible (not open to objective concensus) I agree. The rejection of this proposition is however open to concensus and is therefore an objectively superior position. This is true because the disaffirmation of a specific claim is more likely to be true than the affirmation of a specific claim. This can be demonstrated in an analogy or mathematically if requested. It's sufficient to use the following logic:

    1. There are infinite possible hypothetical theistic beliefs.

    2. Mutually exclusive beliefs have an infinitely improbable chance of being true ( 1 belief / infinte beliefs)

    3. An infinitely improbable empirical assessment is as close to false as is possible.

    4. Therefore it is fair to say that the theistic hypothesis is false.

    5. The atheistic stance can be viewed as the result of the agove analysis (therefore true) or an additional hypothosis.

    6. If analyzed as an additional hypothesis, it must be compared to the neutral Deist hypothesis for equivalency.

    Again, along the same lines, she stated referenced Nobel laureates and "founders" of scientific fields. These appeals to authority are not stated in a probabalistic framework as one who is pragmatic might say "believe what the best educated majority believe." A statement that is pragmatic, but not logically true. Furthermore, Lovelylil's assessment of historical systems of belief does not account for the culture at the time. Nor does it deal with the mutual exclusivity of internal theistic arguments.

    Lovelylil's concluding remarks follow:

    So I think maybe you are not in touch with the scientific community.

    It is logically possible that I am not in touch with the scientific community in general. It is definitely true that I'm not current in all of the dozens of branches of graduate level research in various fields. Anyone who claims to be should be met with skepticism since it is a demonstrably impossible task to maintain current expert knowledge in multiple fields. If Lovelylil is willing to submit this test to an understanding what it would mean to be in touch with the scientific community in general I would submit my level of knowledge to such an assessment, but this still makes no inroads to the truth of the questions under consideration.

    In Lovelylil's next response she said the following:

    I will put this to rest with you too. Because you are misreading my comments in a rush to use your big terms (ad hominem, etc) that I do not think you understand what the meaning really is of them. The only point I wanted to make was this;

    Science cannot rule out a God, whether the God of the Bible or any other God (like Sirona said), as the origin of life or "cause" that brought the universe into existence so niether can you nor Tuesday. You may choose not to believe in higher powers and that is your right to do so, but you cannot say they absolutely cannot exist. I do not see how that is "circular reasoning", it is pretty straight forward fact. Peace, Lilly

    Her claim in paragraph (1) not withstanding, the claim made about science is contingent on the definitions of Science and God and I do not submit this point. I have made ample points on the subject. Depending on the theists definition, it can be proved that God did or did not do a certain thing. This is empty reasoning. Lovelylil fails to make this distinction: There is no way she can prove that God is not writing this message (as I type these words). But, given an understanding of the common ideas about God she is fair to infer that it is a human writing this message. Furthermore, she could say that it would be irrational to believe that God is writing this message. Finally, if speaking deductively from the proposition "If God exists, he does not write on internet message boards" she could conclude that God is not writing on an internet message board. However, if I added the premise that "God is writing on JW discussion forum" and "JW discussion forum is an internet message board" one could rightly prove God does not exist given the premises laid out.

    She then continued to misrepresent the nature of beliefs as points of "choice." It seems clear to the psychological community at large that people form beliefs based on information attained through the five senses and in respect to other beliefs, instincts and biology. She also failed to respond to the causal chain definition I had pointed out previously. I will post an elaborated version of entailment and causality as follows:

    1. The universe at any time, T is completely defined by the state of affairs which entail the composition of the universe (spatial relationships of mass/energy with respect to eachother at time T)

    2. The universe at the next fundamental occurance of space/time is fully entailed by the state of affairs which immediately preceeded the state of affairs at T.

    3. Regressed into the past, the universe has a complete natural explanation given the existance of the state of affairs such that the preceding Ta entailed the antecedant Tb.

    4. This can be regressed to the Plank wall at 10^-43 seconds after T was first entailed in the function of the universe.

    5. If all times T are entailed through General Relativity as part of the universe, then all T's can themselves be infinitely regressed without respect to a beginning.

    Even if I credit Lovelylil with a beginning, God only needs to exist for 10 to the negative 43 seconds. If this is where a Deist wants to hang his hat, by all means do so (on the smalles hat rack the universe has ever seen). But to extrapolate this to a Theist argument that not only does this infinitely unneccessary being exist, but that he listens to you and you know what he wants is a jump of the highest possible order.

    Lovelylil concluded her third reference to me by again ignoring everything I had said about her usage of the Thermodynamic Argument. I say for a third time that this fallacy is in the definition of boundary conditions for closed systems as has been known since well before the 1970's when it was mathematically demonstrated in dissipative systems. I will myself hang my hat on this one, since I am actually an engineer who works in the applied sciences of energy systems.

  • BurnTheShips
    Even if I credit Lovelylil with a beginning, God only needs to exist for 10 to the negative 43 seconds. If this is where a Deist wants to hang his hat, by all means do so (on the smalles hat rack the universe has ever seen). But to extrapolate this to a Theist argument that not only does this infinitely unneccessary being exist, but that he listens to you and you know what he wants is a jump of the highest possible order.

    He exists in a lot less time than that. He exists in no time.


  • Spook

    Burntheships said:

    He exists in a lot less time than that. He exists in no time.

    Though I appreciate a good old fashioned assertion as much as the next guy, I think I've had enough of taking long and pain staking efforts to carefully lay out an argument in the face of a theists ability to simply assert. What can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. This is no more valid than me saying "anyone who believes this stuff is a moron."

    I understand Burn to mean:

    1. If God exists, he "exists" in a manner that is outside the explanatory scope of space/time.

    I can go a couple of places with this. To a deist I may say:

    2. All things which can be explained exist within space time or are a function of it.

    3. Therefore God cannot be explained.

    4. Theism explains God.

    5. Expalining things which are by definition unexplainable is logically false by definition.

    6. Theism is false by definition.

    This limits a theists argument in some rather long and convoluted ways. But I'd prefer to say that the original statement is tautological and meaningless.

    2a. All reality exists within space time and is entailed therefrom.

    3a. Only hypothetical entities can be postulated to existed outside space time.

    4a. Therefore "God" is not real and is a hypothetical entity.

    A more sophisticated argument against this is the argument against mind:

    1b. If God exists, he acts and chooses in terms of mind.

    2b. If God exists, he is not bounded by space/time.

    3b. A mind experiences thoughts and actions one after the next in time.

    4b. Therefore God does not exist.

    And if you don't like that, then give up the notion of God as a conscious entity and become a Spinozaist.

  • BurnTheShips
    And if you don't like that, then give up the notion of God as a conscious entity and become a Spinozaist.

    That's Spinozist.

  • VoidEater

    Hi Burn:

    Groovy new avatar! I think I get it (or maybe I'm just making things up in my own head...in any case, I like that you're still here).

    I may agree with God in "no time", but since this can only be accessed experientially rather than in an intellectual framework I also agree with Spook (and the OP) that this assertion cannot be used as a proof...

    Cheers -Void

Share this