Does science prove the existence of god? (Jesus, ritual, beliefs)

[Mr Spinkles]

Orthodox-- Glad to hear your exams went well. I have a feeling you and I may want to stay in contact in the future.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

That’s correct. The ineluctable fact is that what existed before (I can’t really avoid using that word) the BB was not even an empty vaccum, it was less than that, it was truly no thing. When we describe this nothingness 'before' to the Big Bang we have to place it outside a timeline that started at the Big Bang. I suppose it is useful to our time orientated minds to say that 'nothing' was 'before' the BB. As with what you said before the BB there was no time, there also wasn't space or matter.

Ah, but Orthodox my friend, the premise from which you began your scientific argument for a deity was: "If nothing created the universe then the universe must have always existed (in one form or another anyway)." If we agree that the universe has always existed, that argument loses its foundation.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

The problem for atheists is that in the absence of time there is no cause-effect process– any cause must necessarily exist prior (in a strictly temporal sense) to its’ effect – thus eliminating a natural cause of the universe.

I'm not sure how we can ever eliminate a natural cause of anything without being omnipotent. To invoke a "supernatural" cause is tantamount to saying "I don't know".

On a bit of a sidenote, I would argue that anything that interacts with nature is, by definition, natural; though it may have properties of which we have little understanding.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Something that was not contained in the Big Bang Singularity Point (BBSP) must have ignited the universe, an unbiased analysis of the facts suggests that this is commonsense.

Common sense? Since when does common sense have anything to do with the frustratingly wierd world of quantum physics, astrophysics, and relativity? Check out Deut's thread on Common Sense and Purpose (I can't remember which forum it's in). Let's not forget that for our ancestors, who had no knowledge of electrons and electromagnetism, it was common sense that something/someone supernatural, high above the Earth, must cause lightning. "Common sense" generally seems to push us in the direction of assuming supernatural causes for anything outside our sphere of understanding.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

The problem faced by atheists (and indeed anyone who is not a theist) is so profound that many prominent astronomers and astrophysicists have been fairly blunt in their association of the Big Bang with the Christian idea of Creation Ex Nihilo.

But the universe didn't come from nothing....I thought we agreed that the universe has always existed.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

What is your personal take on the question of what started the Big Bang?

Ask a caveman what is his personal take on the question of what causes lightning, then get back to me.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Ok then. Do you believe it unjust to kill black people or homosexual people? If so why? On the same note, do you believe that you have a ‘right’ to believe what you want?

Yes, I believe it is unjust to kill people just because they are of a certain race or sexual orientation. Why? Ultimately, because of my genetics and my environment. More specifically, because I desire an orderly society in which people get along, rather than a chaotic one where people kill each other all the time. Yes, I believe the government of society should not prevent me from believing what I want.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

I just recently finished up some work I was doing in a philosophy course. I am now going to start a degree in mathematics and physics. I have always enjoyed physics and have worked through a number of university level texts books on the subject. I particularly enjoy Cosmology. What area are you trying to get into career wise? What branch of Physics are you most interested in?

That is too funny-- Cosmology (and astrophysics) is precisely the area that I am interested in! We definitely need to stay in touch...I'm sure you're as excited as I am to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos.

Tell you what-- let's make a deal regarding our future studies into this fascinating subject. I will freely, even enthusiastically, admit that I am biased (as is everyone). I do not believe in a personal god and therefore, being human, I undoubtedly have the propensity to see only the evidence that supports this notion. (A similar bias existed, I'm sure, years ago when I did believe in a personal god.) Here's the deal: as scientists in the earnest pursuit of truth, let's agree that we are both already biased, and must make an effort to overcome this and be truly objective; that what we believe to be true may be wrong; that we are willing to alter our opinions and beliefs given new reasoning/evidence; and finally, that we will seek not to fulfill our beliefs but to find only the truth, wherever it may lie. Deal?

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

Great to hear from you. Sorry it has taken me over a day to reply – I was away from home for a while. I found this post of yours very interesting.

If we agree that the universe has always existed, that argument loses its foundation.

But I don’t agree that there was something (natural) before the BB. I said that there was nothing, not even a vacuum. In the absence of time, matter and space no thing could exist spatially or temporally. I don’t characterise ‘nothing’ as anything more than the total absence of anything (including emptiness).

I'm not sure how we can ever eliminate a natural cause of anything without being omnipotent. To invoke a "supernatural" cause is tantamount to saying "I don't know".

That’s true, we can’t know everything about everything. Even so, we can say, on the basis of our current knowledge, that, (I’ll address Quantum Cosmology later) if the prevailing non-quantum view of the BB is correct then it is vanishingly improbable that there was anything natural in existence to be the cause of the universe.

Since when does common sense have anything to do with the frustratingly weird world of quantum physics, astrophysics, and relativity? Let's not forget that for our ancestors, who had no knowledge of electrons and electromagnetism, it was common sense that something/someone supernatural, high above the Earth, must cause lightning. "Common sense" generally seems to push us in the direction of assuming supernatural causes for anything outside our sphere of understanding.

My claim that commonsense indicated a supernatural creator ran along these lines.

1. Something cannot bring itself into existence. (ie Causa sui)
2. Nothing natural existed before the BB.
3. Therefore, something other than the natural (ie the supernatural) brought the universe into existence.

If these premises ring true then the conclusion is commonsense. However, as you have highlighted, along with the rise of Quantum Mechanics has come a number of complicating factors. So far in this thread I haven’t ventured from the relative simplicity of the more classical approach to physics, still, Quantum Cosmology is very interesting and does require a totally different approach to conventional BB Cosmology.

The caveman you describe made the ‘commonsense’ assumption that a god caused lightning based on a lack of evidence (ie. he didn’t know about electricity). On the other hand, we have evidence to suggest that no natural explanation is possible for the causation of the universe. Commonsense should push us only in the direction of the evidence; this is all I intended it to mean.

I desire an orderly society in which people get along, rather than a chaotic one where people kill each other all the time. Yes, I believe the government of society should not prevent me from believing what I want.

Why is order preferable to chaos? If there is no meaning behind life why is its perpetuation desirable? What is wrong with forcing somebody to believe what you want him or her to, why should people have a choice in anything?

Cosmology (and astrophysics) is precisely the area that I am interested in! We definitely need to stay in touch...I'm sure you're as excited as I am to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos.

Wow! What a coincidence! We certainly do need to stay in touch. I know exactly what you mean about being existed to unravel the mysteries of the universe. I can’t imagine not being drawn to a realm of study that can so profoundly impact the nature of humankind’s existence. It is also fascinating how ‘frustratingly weird’ the universe is.

Tell you what-- let's make a deal regarding our future studies into this fascinating subject. I will freely, even enthusiastically, admit that I am biased (as is everyone). I do not believe in a personal god and therefore, being human, I undoubtedly have the propensity to see only the evidence that supports this notion. (A similar bias existed, I'm sure, years ago when I did believe in a personal god.) Here's the deal: as scientists in the earnest pursuit of truth, let's agree that we are both already biased, and must make an effort to overcome this and be truly objective; that what we believe to be true may be wrong; that we are willing to alter our opinions and beliefs given new reasoning/evidence; and finally, that we will seek not to fulfil our beliefs but to find only the truth, wherever it may lie. Deal?

Deal! (With a few stipulations)

I will try and fulfil my belief as a Christian in my usual way, by following the Bible. While this may seem to be an obstacle to scientific inquiry it is not. The Bible says "Put everything to the test; hold fast that which is good." I think this the very basis of objectivity. Being a Christian should not make me subjective; it should make me more objective. Keeping an open mind doesn’t necessarily mean keeping an empty mind. My quest is to find the truth, right now I think I have found it but, if I find sufficient evidence to the contrary, I will follow the evidence. I imagine it is the same with you.

Just as a side note, I find it interesting that you were once a theist. I myself was an atheist until a few years ago.

orthodox

[linwood]

As with what you said before the BB there was no time, there also wasn't space

I know we`ve been over this before Mr.Spinkles but exactly how is this possible?
How can this be?

There must be space ..yes?..No?
Even when you have nothing that nothing is taking up space.
Even when space is completely filled with matter..the space still exists it`s just occupied.

I`ll never get it.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Orthodox

But I don’t agree that there was something (natural) before the BB. I said that there was nothing, not even a vacuum. In the absence of time, matter and space no thing could exist spatially or temporally.

Not all nothings are created equal. There are any number of ideas floating around the halls of quantum cosmology, not the least of which are the Wheeler-DeWitt multiverse and the Hawking "no boundary" condition.

Homo sapiens have been around for perhaps 120K years. Copernicus was born a little over 500 years ago. And in that sliver of time we have advanced to the point where we actually have highly competent theoreticians discussing the antecedents of the Big Bang. Perhaps we should forgive them if they don't solve the problem overnight or, what's worse, dare to arrive at theories that transcend our 'common sense'. As Darwin once remarked: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science".

-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871

[Orthodox]

Linwood,

There must be space ..yes?..No?
Even when you have nothing that nothing is taking up space.
Even when space is completely filled with matter..the space still exists it`s just occupied.

The BB is effectivley the sheet of space-time being stretched out. It is useful to imagine the universe as objects on an infinitley large rubber sheet. In the BB the sheet is stretched out from a point of infinite density. Imagine stretching out a big rubber sheet on which you have draw circles. The further you stretch the sheet, the further away the circles are from each other. Likewise, the matter in our universe is being streched away from itself. Space-time is the 'space' in which something can reside, nothing (natural anyway) can exist off the sheet of space-time and, since the BB is the sheet being streched out from infinite density, nothing (natural) therefore existed 'before' the BB.

[linwood]

I understand the concept of the big bang.
I can even comprehand the universe devoid of any and all matter.
I cannot comprehend the non-existence of space however.

I don`t see how it is physically possible.

[Orthodox]

Linwood,

I understand the concept of the big bang.
I can even comprehand the universe devoid of any and all matter.
I cannot comprehend the non-existence of space however.

I don`t see how it is physically possible.

Don't try and imagine a space in which there is no space. That is impossible. The non-existence of space is not a physical reality. There is no physical essence in the nature of space-time's non-existence.

I had a picture which helps demonstrate this but I can't get it to go on my post. Is it possible to put a picture in a post?

orthodox

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Space-time is the 'space' in which something can reside, nothing (natural anyway) can exist off the sheet of space-time and, since the BB is the sheet being streched out from infinite density, nothing (natural) therefore existed 'before' the BB.

How sad that so many cosmologist don't have your grasp of the obvious. Your parenthetical, of course, is simply another case of poisoning the well.