There is science that prove God exists

by HopeEverLasting 148 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  A Ha

  ... dark energy is an inherent property of space, and the added space of the expanding universe increases the energy content of the universe. This explains the accelerated expansion of the universe... that dark energy is thought to be a possible feature of the pre-beginning condition too. or?

  Yes, thanks for the correction. It's been a while since I've read From Eternity to Here, so I'll have to look through it to see specifically what you're talking about, but my post demonstrates that I shouldn't comment on such dense topics when it's well past my bedtime. It's difficult to remember that the much-vaunted "conservation of energy" doesn't apply in an expanding universe (and even here I must simply accept what the experts say, as much of the physics is over my head).

  However, I don't think dark energy "is thought to be a... feature of the pre-beginning condition," since it's a property of space-time, which didn't exist until the BB. You'll note that I left out the word "possible" from my quote of you, because I think it renders your claim too wishy-washy to be useful. Anything is possible. However, I'll grant that my objection is little more than a nit-pick because you're attempting to solve a problem that I don't think exists. If we're going to posit a creator, then you don't need to explain how it did anything (including what material it might have needed to work with); whatever the physicists come up with, we can always just add, "God used that... or caused that... or created that... or transformed that..."

  Moon fairies as straw men?

  It's not a straw man because I'm not presenting it as your position. It's a demonstration that appealing to the "possibility" of something doesn't gain you much--if anything at all.
• 

  prologos

  A Ha: "These conditions demand the existence of time,

  you can not have anything happening without having time to do it in. The big bang was a point in time. the point is: there had to be time to have that point in. If the universe is the result of an imbalance of virtual particle/energy fluctuations, that is an acceleration, meaning time^2.. all that happened in the time preceding the big bang. (read Penrose).-- We are now moving through time, following the one way arrow, since the big bang. and : on the other subject:----the moon/earth system, the Sun are waltzing, rotating along synchronized, no fairies required, obviously.

  PS: all these writers, Krauss, Penrose, Carroll imply that there was time and energy in the "void" preceding the big bang, a void,- it can be assumed to still exist outside the now bigger universe, and into which it is expanding since the beginning of the movement outward. so : at what radius in time did these pre-big bang conditions disappear? but if they did not disappear, that energy can still be a property of the void, and is making it's constant appearance into the space that opens up in the expanding universe. That the gist of what I read. or?
  
  
• 

  cofty

  all these writers, Krauss, Penrose, Carroll imply that there was time and energy in the "void" preceding the big bang - Prologos

  
  "The lesson is clear: quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from nothing - meaning, in this case, I emphasise, the absence of space and time - it may require them. "Nothing" - in this case no space, no time, no anything! - is unstable." - A Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss 2012
• 

  prologos

  Krauss @cofty: "-- the absence of space and time, --"

  perhaps that should read "spacetime"? a huge difference. and, "nothing" ,--elsewhere according to these writers, is not only unstable but seething with energy, virtual activity,-- in and out of existence, all implying the existence of time, even if in a well chosen sentence, they might appear to try to nullify that fact; --often, "time" is misinterpreted so as to mean "movement through" time. or?

  PS: "instability" can mean to be momentarily stationary, teetering on the brink of movement, but that movement will precipitate movement through time, that according to Sean Carroll.s preference is a pre-existing dimension, not a river that started flowing at the big bang. added:

  Is there the possibility that this "nothing", unstable and endowed with seething energy is still out there? waiting to be absorbed by the universe as it expands, constrained by it's "one way sign" in the dimension of time? because don't forget, there IS nothing outside the universe.
• 

  cofty

  Ok Prologos you should email Lawrence Krauss and let him know that he doesn't mean what he clearly says.

  "Nothing" - in this case no space, no time, no anything! - is unstable." - Lawrence Krauss
• 

  prologos

  Ok Prologos you should email Lawrence Krauss and let him know that he doesn't mean what he clearly says.

  It might be like writing to brooklyn, and the context of what you so well quoted might have changed. . I am just trying to gather MHO, cherry picking , I admit, information from all these sources to fit my world picture/model which has the universe expanding like a 2 (3space-1) dimensional balloon skin. expanding, moving through time from a starting point in time , but time that as a dimension stretches to infinity. Just like I desire more time for my future, I like to cede to the creator time to work in, in the pre-universe past.
• 

  cofty

  Have you read Krauss' book Prologos?
• 

  prologos

  Yes I have, and if I can summarize my reaction in one sentence: the learned man denies that there ever was truly "nothing" rien, nichts.
• 

  cofty

  I have read the book. I have it in front of me. He could not have been any more explicit that he really means absolutely NOTHING! No time, no space, no laws of physics absolutely nothing. He dedicates the prologue to addressing all the possible semantic objections he could think of.

  You see what you want to see.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Isn't using science to figure out God like using a ruler to measure how loud the radio is?