There is science that prove God exists

by HopeEverLasting 148 Replies latest jw friends

  • cofty

    Science makes belief in god unnecessary not impossible - reality does the rest.

  • slimboyfat

    ...makes about as much sense as saying that science doesn't disprove a tea party it just makes a tea party unnecessary.

    And reality is socially constructed.

  • cofty


  • prologos

    cofty: "You see what you want to see.

    prologos: we will see about that. I will read it again (gave my cop to charity)***. perhaps there is an updated edition? , and will get back to you all. I based my observations on material from what i remember of Krauss, Penrose, and "From Eternity to here" which sits on my night table right now, --, with annotated bookmark

    PS: *** together with many science books going back 50 years, they contain all but history, 4 years is a long time in cosmology and many of the genre only re-defined the word "nothing" or "void" .

  • prologos
    A Ha: "The Laws of Physics explain the orbits of the planets. It's also possible that Moon Fairies push the moon around its orbit while the planets follow Newtonian physics. "Possible" is not an impressive claim, especially when there's no reason to think it's the case.

    It is not just you, another poster has a threat on "Moon, laws & mathematics", an astronomy version of "--Science that proves that God exists", and in coming back to your moon fairies proposal, : Most planetary mass rotates at 10 hours, not 24, like the Earth, but if the angular momentum of the Earth/Moon system is considered, it evens out, what ever smacked the earth to separate the moon, hit just right to have them rotate at the same rate as the sun. In golf, that's a "hole in one" all made possible by the conditions in the beginning that came out of the energetic, bubbling "nothing".

  • A Ha
    A Ha

    prologos, we (myself included) very often talk about the universe without differentiating--even within our own minds--just what we mean by it. Often when we say universe, we mean the observable universe (technically, the part that's inside our light cone). Other times we're talking about a larger universe which our observable "world" is a part of. There are different ways of describing a larger "Multiverse," from parallel universes, ensemble universe, "branes," superspace, bubble universes, etc. The beginning of our observable universe, at a Big Bang, isn't necessarily the beginning of all existence. This allows for the space-time of our universe to have a beginning while allowing for time in part of a larger universe.

    Two models showing our universe within a larger multiverse. Note, also, that these multiverses were not imagined to avoid the need for a god; they arise naturally from QM equations.

    on the other subject:----the moon/earth system, the Sun are waltzing, rotating along synchronized, no fairies required, obviously.

    This was my point, and it seems you agree. Just as there are no fairies required to explain the orbit of the moon, no god is required to explain any facet of the universe.

    ... at what radius in time did these pre-big bang conditions disappear?

    What pre-big bang conditions are you talking about? There are too many different models to ask a blanket question or give a blanket answer. That said, if I had to take a guess, I'd say many models don't say conditions "disappeared into" anything; they simply transitioned from one phase to another. If we're talking about a theoretical higher-entropy state to the very low entropy state of our early universe, or a fluctuation in a quantum field, there's nothing to 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?

    That's not my understanding. If anything, the universe would be said to be expanding into this empty space, not the other way around. More importantly, however we characterize this boundary, the cosmic background microwave radiation shows that conditions of our "local," or observable universe obtain at least to the edge of our light cone, and anything happening beyond that is impenetrable to us.

  • Finkelstein

    Science proves that there are things that are still unknown and yet to be discovered.

    Today's accumulated knowledge drawn from science has changed what the conceptual idea of what we might perceive would be a God.

  • prologos
    A ha: "More importantly, however we characterize this boundary, the cosmic background microwave radiation shows that conditions of our "local," or observable universe obtain at least to the edge of our light cone, and anything happening beyond that is impenetrable to us.

    thank you aha for those explanations that I mostly agree with. re: Background radiation, that of course, while in our light cone, is looking into the past, seeing not what there is now, but was 300 00 years after the beginning. just having Penrose: "Cycles of times " handy, and do not dome of his light cones, life lines go beyond the zero mark into the past, the before the bang?

    I see a pattern from the geocentric world view we came to the central sun, then the our Milky Way universe, now realise that our "ALL", (the german version) is not all there is to the cosmos either,

  • Viviane
    You can not have anything happening without having time to do it in.

    Why not? Be specific.

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

    Define void, please. And be specific. Also, citation required.

    *Edit* Nevermind, I see cofty beat me to it. At least prologos freely admits he doesn't understand what he is reading and just cherry picking to support the word salad he calls a world view. However, when you try to get him to explain it, it turns into asking a theist what spirit is made of.

Share this