God discovered by Science

[ChristineM]

That is not what I said. I believe the universe is probably a closed system with a tendency towards a net increase in entropy. Reread the post.
A closed system can have within itself open systems which are encompassed by it. Any open system which decreases the entropy within it must create this decrease by increasing the entropy in some other system. For example...we increase the entropy in the universe by processing the materials needed to decrease the entropy in a useful device such as a TV. Cars and TV's succumb to an increase in their entropy eventually rendering them unable to function as intended only in so much as they are relegated to the trash heap in a closed system. In an open system repairs can be made to keep the items functionable as intended by keeping their entropy low.
Your sarcasm is premature and unbecoming of an impartial thinker. No such thing as a free ride? Better tell that to the scientists such as hawking who've bent over backwards to try and explain the "free ride" of a creation seemingly out of nothing.

You are thinking a very narrow range, even with repairs whatever is made will eventually succumb to entropy. As will this world, thus solar system, etc

Sarcasm is good humour, i like it, i run on it. Sorry that you don't, i will remember for next time.

 

[setarcos]

That looks like it might be a bunch of word salad. By the way, when I was speaking of "nothing" I was speaking of a case of "zero energy". The actual concept of "nothing" may be impossible in our universe.

Isn't "zero energy" another way of describing a net entropic decrease or increase of zero?

You are thinking a very narrow range, even with repairs whatever is made will eventually succumb to entropy. As will this world, thus solar system, etc

Sarcasm is good humour, i like it, i run on it. Sorry that you don't, i will remember for next time.

Narrow range? Whose narrowing their range? I was discussing idealized systems. The fact that entropy in an open system will eventually increase relies entirely on the system encompassing it being closed. As long as an open system can input energy from elsewhere there is no reason that that system cannot keep its entropy low. If the universe itself is an open system then these processes could theoretically continue indefinitely.

Sarcasm has its place for sure. But its best used when your positive the other person is wrong. Otherwise you run the risk of looking foolish.
Thats why I am rarely sarcastic of another persons opinions. I keep my sarcasm mostly for commenting on another persons actions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't "zero energy" another way of describing a net entropic decrease or increase of zero?

No. The total energy of the universe appears to always have been zero from my understanding, but the entropy of the universe has increased. Those are two different issues. Related, but different.

 

[ChristineM]

Isn't "zero energy" another way of describing a net entropic decrease or increase of zero?

Narrow range? Whose narrowing their range? I was discussing idealized systems. The fact that entropy in an open system will eventually increase relies entirely on the system encompassing it being closed. As long as an open system can input energy from elsewhere there is no reason that that system cannot keep its entropy low. If the universe itself is an open system then these processes could theoretically continue indefinitely.

Sarcasm has its place for sure. But its best used when your positive the other person is wrong. Otherwise you run the risk of looking foolish.
Thats why I am rarely sarcastic of another persons opinions. I keep my sarcasm mostly for commenting on another persons actions.

The arrow of time only goes one way therefore entropy must increase.

 

[setarcos]

No. The total energy of the universe appears to always have been zero from my understanding, but the entropy of the universe has increased. Those are two different issues. Related, but different.

Zero energy does not equate to the absence of all energy. It is a way of describing the amount of countermanding forces or fields within the universe. A point of equal countermanding forces is a point at which zero energy is produced. No work is being done. However something still exists. The fields. Is this not correct? One big question science has tried to explain is how these things separated and the universe became "lumpy" in the first place. The something from the nothing.

 

[setarcos]

The arrow of time only goes one way therefore entropy must increase.

This is not true. The "arrow" of time only appears to go one way to us. Science has shown that at quantum levels time seems to have no discernable "direction". Mathematically there is no necessary direction to "time's" arrow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Zero energy does not equate to the absence of all energy. It is a way of describing the amount of countermanding forces or fields within the universe. A point of equal countermanding forces is a point at which zero energy is produced. No work is being done. However something still exists. The fields. Is this not correct? One big question science has tried to explain is how these things separated and the universe became "lumpy" in the first place. The something from the nothing.

I would not say that it is "something from nothing", though even that on a universal scale may be reasonable. What it actually is is a problem that we do not fully understand yet.

Far too often, when it comes to details that are not understood by scientists, theists will attempt to shove their gods into those gaps. The problem for theists when they do this is that when the problem is understood that their God is squeezed out of that gap and is a smaller god as a result. The God of the Gaps should be seen as blasphemy by theists since they are abusing their god hypothesis and continually making him smaller.

 

[ChristineM]

This is not true. The "arrow" of time only appears to go one way to us. Science has shown that at quantum levels time seems to have no discernable "direction". Mathematically there is no necessary direction to "time's" arrow.

The arrow of time is dictated by the expanding universe and so can only go one way. As far as i know only one experiment (conditions of which cannot occur naturally) has forced the arrow of time to reverse for a fraction of a second

Please provide citation for your claim that time has no discernable direction. Even at quantum levels energy disperses the lower levels of energy

I am talking reality not mathematics.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Now I understand you you are trying to say nothing created anything

That means men did not even manufacture any thing on earth

Well that does not make sense to me

If you believe anything can appear on it own then we can't make any progress

Because you will always win a car can appear on it own automatically

If this is your area of interest then nope you have won the conversion

But at the end of time we shall see who wins the battle

Who created God(s)?

 

[setarcos]

I would not say that it is "something from nothing", though even that on a universal scale may be reasonable. What it actually is is a problem that we do not fully understand yet.

Far too often, when it comes to details that are not understood by scientists, theists will attempt to shove their gods into those gaps. The problem for theists when they do this is that when the problem is understood that their God is squeezed out of that gap and is a smaller god as a result. The God of the Gaps should be seen as blasphemy by theists since they are abusing their god hypothesis and continually making him smaller.

Ahh, yes...the old God of the gaps. First of all, you must realize that not all, if not most, theists are very good at representing what they think God is. Or the God of their religion. Second, there is no reason that science and religion have to be at odds with each other.
For instance, IF we suppose the Christian God exists and created this reality then we can also suppose that it created in its creatures a method of existing within that creation by having the capacity to comprehend that reality to the extent that it is profitable in some manner to those creatures. I think the gaps are for science not for religion. Science has already shown its own inadequacies to understand the totality of reality. That's no proof of God of course but many scientists are all too ready to place science into those gaps as well prematurely.
Its premature to say..."since science has filled in so called gaps before it will fill in all gaps in the future without the need for a God hypothesis".
And....oftentimes the science isn't even filling in gaps, its having to create whole new theories wiping out the gaps it thought were filled in before.
Many theists get ahead of themselves in claiming science can't explain this without resorting to God and then science explains it in a naturalistic viewpoint -Though many of those views raise more questions than the original answer resolved - and so the theists end up looking foolish. The only thing that proves is an over reaching desire to show what they think is true.
But many scientists claim no supernatural phenomena and no God simply because of the existence of scientific methods and their seeming pragmatic and predictable results. The result is the same thing theists are subject to. Faith. Faith that their theory is true...until its shown it isn't.
The problem with science is that it all too readily dismisses anomalies that don't fit into its world view. But anomalies do happen and they happen quite often if you don't dismiss thousands if not millions of peoples experiences and testimonies. Science is quick to claim this didn't happen or that couldn't have happened simply because there is no readily producible evidence or way to experimentally reproduce any evidence. How do you call up an apparition on demand? I don't believe you can and all those charlatans out there who claim to do so so you can talk to your dead loved ones only muddy the waters of reality in my opinion giving science its all too readily shouted "see I told you so" when found to be fake or easily explained.
Every once in a while though....every so little often something happens that science admits they can't explain and then the scientists qualify this with "but that doesn't mean its not a natural phenomena". They fill in those gaps with their own brand of faith.
IF God exists your not gonna only find it in the gaps, your gonna find it everywhere else but your not gonna prove it unless that being steps down somehow into our level of finite reality to show us. After all, how is the character going to prove the existence of the story teller unless the story teller gives the character that capacity?
There is still a few good points to be made about Gods existence. Stephen C. Meyers new book "The return of the God hypothesis" is interesting if you want a view from a Cambridge educated science advocate for example. There are many brilliant scientists and philosophers who do believe in some kind of God so I wouldn't count theists out just yet.

 

[setarcos]

Who created God(s)?

? One of the main premises of what God means is that it is the only thing uncreated and eternal in its duration.
So to answer this I'd say, no one created God. Not even God. I don't believe the concept of God can be extended to include more than one without running into qualifiers which render the thing meaningless.

 

[setarcos]

The arrow of time is dictated by the expanding universe and so can only go one way. As far as i know only one experiment (conditions of which cannot occur naturally) has forced the arrow of time to reverse for a fraction of a second

Please provide citation for your claim that time has no discernable direction. Even at quantum levels energy disperses the lower levels of energy

I am talking reality not mathematics.

At quantum levels, quantum indeterminacy renders the "arrow of time" obsolete. I'll try and find some citations for you by tomorrow. I'm out of time here.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Energy
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. ... In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This is how science discovered an area of God

Stating that God is many things and that God is power and since power is energy

Therefore since science says
. Energy can not be created or destroyed

There for God exists

Because science shows that there is a force that can not be created and that force can not be destroyed

They called that force energy

While the Bible calls that force God

The linkage is very clear for all to see the evidence from scientists research

If science never found this force then Bible theories maybe said to be lying but here science found it and science explain it exactly the way Bible explains it

God can not be created and God cannot be destroyed same as energy definition

Is this not marvelous in our eyes


Glory to God

The Bible would not agree with your pantheistic conclusions here, though. Many Christian denominations (for example) would see them as heretical.

 

[night912]

Before I will apologize you have to say to me that my definition was not complete

Not saying no which is totally wrong

Admit it correct but not complete even in class any teach will score me B at least

Your answer was wrong, that's why you didn't get an "A" grade. And any English teacher would've marked the test question as wrong. If the question ask you to give the meaning of the word. "power" when it's being used in physics. If you provided an answer that was not the complete definition of the word, "power" then that means that you failed to answered the question correctly.

I remember my time in college when some students would do the same thing. They would tell the professors that he was wrong and presented what they believed was the correct answer. In all incidents, the professors tell them that they were wrong and explained how/why their answers were wrong and the professors' were correct. There was only one time that this happened that a the student arrogantly argued back that resulted in the student getting humiliated because the professor provided a long explanation pointing out all the reasons why the student was wrong. I never saw that student in that class again. There was one that I thought was the best response from a professor. The student apologized and the professor told him there's no need to apologize because he already knows the answer that's why he is the teacher and we are the students. We as students are responsible for asking questions. It's his responsibility to provide the correct answers for us making sure that we not only know the correct answer but also why it's correct and why other answers are wrong.

So, why would you, the one who was wrong, demand an apology from the person who was correct, the one who you accused of being wrong? I don't see anything wrong with providing you with the correct answer and explaining why yours was wrong.


A great challenge of life:
Knowing enough to think you are right, but not knowing enough to know you are wrong. - Neil Degrasse Tyson.

 

[firedragon]

Who created God(s)?

Thats a typical question of course used as arguments by some of the most unsophisticated atheistic apologists, but the more robust and educated atheists know that this question is an oxymoron.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats a typical question of course used as arguments by some of the most unsophisticated atheistic apologists, but the more robust and educated atheists know that this question is an oxymoron.

How so? I don't think that you understand what an oxymoron is. It is a perfectly good question since it illustrates that sine theists use a special pleading fallacy.

 

[RestlessSoul]

At quantum levels, quantum indeterminacy renders the "arrow of time" obsolete. I'll try and find some citations for you by tomorrow. I'm out of time here.

Not necessarily obsolete, but perhaps a function of perspective and perception. An illusion, in effect. Quantum physicist Carlo Rovelli argues this in his book The Order of Time. Let’s see if I’ve understood Rovelli well enough to explain it (without calculus, which I wouldn’t be able to follow anyway and have to take on faith. Apparently Boltzmann’s equation is pertinent though);

We start by observing that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the only law of science which distinguishes between past and future. We can also observe that in conditions of thermal equilibrium, there would be no directional flow of time; no transfer of energy from hot to cold objects, no increase in entropy, no linear flow of time. But park that here for now.

As the entropy of the universe increases, the configurations at quantum level, as at the macro level, become less ordered, more disordered. At this point we may use the analogy of a pack of cards. When a new pack of playing cards is unwrapped, they are ordered according to colour and suit, and each suit is ordered numerically. This is a state of low entropy, with obvious order and structure. When the cards are shuffled, these obvious configurations can no longer be observed; order is lost, the pack is now in a state of high entropy.

However, what we observe of the cards is precisely that; an observation. The reality may be that there are an equal number of particular configurations in the cards both before and after shuffling, if we perceive and calculate all of them. The particular configurations before and after shuffling are in fact equivalent, though it does not seem that way to the naked eye, because the naked eye noticed the obvious particularities like colour, but would not be aware of all the numeric particularities that would need to be calculated to be observed.

This in itself may be enough to upend our perception of the direction of time, but there’s more; in the swirling maelstrom of information with which the quantum world surrounds us, we have access only to a handful of variables. We exist within a subset of the universe, and our experience of it is defined by the particular sets of variables we have access to. And within this subset, entropy was low in the past and increasing in the present, the second law pertains, time is linear. But if we had access to all the information contained within the universe around us, the intricate webs of causality would not be linear, they would be multi dimensional. Entropy would not increase in linear manner, time would not be unidirectional - they would fluctuate in all directions, and none.

So much for Rovelli, though I urge anyone and especially any lay person interested in the fundamentals of QM, to read him. Gerard t’Hooft and Yakir Aharanov are two other Quantum Physicists whose work on Superdeterminism, The Aharanov/Bohm effect, and Weak Values, have radical implications for the nature of time. Bell’s Theory is another reference worth pursuing, in particular the revelations regarding non-locality which Bell uncovered.

A final observation; in his popular book A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking posits not one time’s arrow, but three. The Thermodynamic Arrow, as we’ve been discussing; the Cosmic Arrow, moving in the direction of the expanding universe (this may go into reverse, if the universe begins to contract), and the Psychological Arrow, by which we are able to remember the past, but have no foreknowledge of the future. Hawking, who makes no claims at least in the chapter on Time’s Arrow in his Brief History, makes no claims challenging the linear progression of time, but he does make the observation that all three arrows must be aligned in order for conditions to pertain that allow for the existence of intelligent life (us). Philosophically, this observation from the workd of astrophysics seems to have some bearing Rovelli’s preposition that we exist within a peculiar subset of the quantum universe configured by the information to which we have access.

in summary; our experience of time is linear. It must be so, in order for us to construct narratives that allow us to make sense of our lives. But this probably has nothing to do with the true nature of time; everything we thought we knew about time was probably wrong, as Einstein told us over 100 years ago.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You should not base your evidence on who created snow flake rather ask who created what created the snow flake

And that, right there, is the crux of it all. The ultimate argument from ignorance.

You'll grasp at anything that is unexplained and "ask" who created that, while off course already having an apriori answer in mind. And when the thing is then explained properly by saying "process X created this thing", then your a priori assumption is pushed back again and you'll then dishonestly "ask" who created process X?

The god you believe in, is an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance.

And its man, man made the fridge

Man did not make the ice in the fridge.
Neither is ice made by fridges.

So no whenever you see some things that come from non personal processes what you should ask as a thinker is what then created or manufactured the non personal process which we all know is man

And you'll continue to trail back until we answer the question with "we don't know" and that's where you'll swoop in with your juvenile god-of-the-gaps.

Now when it comes to things that exist before man then we can absolutely Say God created it

You can say it till you are blue in the face.
It won't change the fact that you're just making a humongous argument from ignorance loaded with unjustifiable a priori religious assumptions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

? One of the main premises of what God means is that it is the only thing uncreated and eternal in its duration.

Also known as "special pleading".

 

[setarcos]

Also known as "special pleading".

How is that special pleading? The definition of God literally includes its eternal existence. Defining a concept is not the same as proving the concepts reality.