Scientific Proof of God

[osgart]

What came first, the laws of nature or physical existence?

I always hear that the laws of nature are sufficient to explain everything in existence. What reasons back this up?
And what caused the laws of nature to exist to begin with?

It seems to me that naturalism needs a self creating universe, or a perpetually cyclical universe. If it has neither of those you are left with intelligent causation from an eternal realm outside the known universe. Or perhaps we are a one shot deal that fell just right for us to exist before we fade away into void emptiness.

One things for sure this universe is going to die out. It is not steady state.

 

[osgart]

What sounds supernatural to me is an inflationary universe.

Non locality also sounds quite mystical.

 

[shmogie]

Please cite and do not use third person hypotheticals.



Big on observation and evidence, but nothing in terms of recreation (?).



The only thing that has been observed as objectively verifiable evidence is attributable to the Laws of Nature. If you believe there is objective verifiable evidence of anything else please cite the reference.



This is an assertion base don faith without any objective verifiable evidence to support anything else beside the Laws of Nature being the cause. If you can cite anything else please do.




Not totally speculation the science of Quantum Mechanics supports the Multiverse hypothesis, and so does the cyclic universe hypothesis.

What you say is possible, and an open question, but there is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence that the beginning of our universe is the beginning of anything more than our universe. The cyclic universe hypothesis fits the the existing evidence as well as the beginning as a singularity.

Your assertion depends on the beginning of our universe being the beginning of everything, and it is an assumption based on faith with no supporting evidence.




No, not chauvinistic at all. There is no other objective verifiable evidence other than the the existence of the Laws of Nature at play anywhere or everywhere.

I am making no assertion other than what you don´t know, you don´t know.

You cannot be emphatic about anything being applicable, when you don´t know that it is.

There may be multiverses, existing side by side by side, layered like an onion, there may be three or 18 running through your living room, but you can know it.

In the 40´s a very interesting book was written called ¨ Flat World¨ as I recall.

In essence a human from our 3 dimensional world winds up in a 2 dimensional world, left right, backwards and forwards, no third dimension of height. He could watch them scurry about by looking down on them, hear their conversations, etc, But all they saw of him were the flat lines of the absolute bottoms of his shoes, which moved about for no apparent reason, and alarmed them.

By the same token, there may be any number of things occuring, that we have absolutely no way to know about, like multi dimensions as an example

In those cases, the laws of nature we use, are unable to account for or detect what could be.

The flat worlders were never able to dettect clearly or understand the 3 dimensional person, he was outside of how they exist and outside their science, outside of their possible knowledge. Different rules.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am making no assertion other than what you don´t know, you don´t know.

Neither do you 'know' nor anyone else. There is no grounds to base a belief on such an assertion.

You cannot be emphatic about anything being applicable, when you don´t know that it is.

incoherent.

There may be multiverses, existing side by side by side, layered like an onion, there may be three or 18 running through your living room, but you can know it.

Did not claim to 'know' it.

In the 40´s a very interesting book was written called ¨ Flat World¨ as I recall.

In essence a human from our 3 dimensional world winds up in a 2 dimensional world, left right, backwards and forwards, no third dimension of height. He could watch them scurry about by looking down on them, hear their conversations, etc, But all they saw of him were the flat lines of the absolute bottoms of his shoes, which moved about for no apparent reason, and alarmed them.

Does not sound interesting to me.

By the same token, there may be any number of things occuring, that we have absolutely no way to know about, like multi dimensions as an example.

Extreme possibilities are not meaningful here.

In those cases, the laws of nature we use, are unable to account for or detect what could be.

OK, so what?!?!?!

The flat worlders were never able to detect clearly or understand the 3 dimensional person, he was outside of how they exist and outside their science, outside of their possible knowledge. Different rules.

Again, not meaningful.

 

[shunyadragon]

What came first, the laws of nature or physical existence?

Together hand in hand, possibly eternal.

I always hear that the laws of nature are sufficient to explain everything in existence. What reasons back this up?

Concerning the physical existence, all the present objective verifiable evidence we have is that the foundation of our physical existence is 'determinism' based on Quantum Mechanics, and the macro nature of our physical existence and the Laws of Nature are emergent from the Quantum World. Anything else at present is 'arguing from ignorance.'.

[quote[ And what caused the laws of nature to exist to begin with? p/quote]

Unknown, possibly eternal.

It seems to me that naturalism needs a self creating universe, or a perpetually cyclical universe. If it has neither of those you are left with intelligent causation from an eternal realm outside the known universe. Or perhaps we are a one shot deal that fell just right for us to exist before we fade away into void emptiness.

At present Naturalism only needs Quantum Mechanics and the Quantum World where our physical existence and the Laws of Nature are emergent.

One things for sure this universe is going to die out. It is not steady state.

Not if it is cyclic, and yes beyond our universe there are likely infinite universes.

 

[osgart]

Together hand in hand, possibly eternal.



Concerning the physical existence, all the present objective verifiable evidence we have is that the foundation of our physical existence is 'determinism' based on Quantum Mechanics, and the macro nature of our physical existence and the Laws of Nature are emergent from the Quantum World. Anything else at present is 'arguing from ignorance.'.

[quote[ And what caused the laws of nature to exist to begin with? p/quote]

Unknown, possibly eternal.



At present Naturalism only needs Quantum Mechanics and the Quantum World where our physical existence and the Laws of Nature are emergent.



Not if it is cyclic, and yes beyond our universe there are likely infinite universes.

They have only just begun with Quantum Mechanics and still its mostly inexplicable other than its precise predictable results. No scientist can say they fully understand it and all its implications.

The Many Worlds Interpretation is only speculation. I would say its far from understood from what i have read.

I gather everything naturalism about quantum mechanics is all interpretation. Would that be fair to say?

 

[shunyadragon]

They have only just begun with Quantum Mechanics and still its mostly inexplicable other than its precise predictable results. No scientist can say they fully understand it and all its implications.

I disagree with your invoking a high fog index for Quantum Mechanics. Yes of course we do not fully understand it and likely we will never know, and there will always be many unknowns, and that is the nature of the frontiers of science. The current knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is sufficient to determine our physical world is emergent from the Quantum World.

The Many Worlds Interpretation is only speculation. I would say its far from understood from what i have read.

True to a certain extent, but that does not detract at all form our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics. At present variations of the hypothesis of a multiverse are the only plausible hypothesis available.

I gather everything naturalism about quantum mechanics is all interpretation. Would that be fair to say?

No

 

[osgart]

I disagree with your invoking a high fog index for Quantum Mechanics. Yes of course we do not fully understand it and likely we will never know, and there will always be many unknowns, and that is the nature of the frontiers of science. The current knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is sufficient to determine our physical world is emergent from the Quantum World.



True to a certain extent, but that does not detract at all form our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics. At present variations of the hypothesis of a multiverse are the only plausible hypothesis available.



No

Then there is no basis for believing in a god!

 

[shunyadragon]

Then there is no basis for believing in a god!

Not the case. That is separate issue. Though there are multitude of reasons not to believe in the ancient Gods, their tribal archaic world view, and modern science is one.

 

[osgart]

Not the case. That is separate issue. Though there are multitude of reason not to believe in the ancient Gods, their tribal archaic world view, and modern science is one.

Modern science does make the belief in ancient Gods absurd. But they are absurd enough without science.

I am amazed you do have a case for God though, i must admit.

 

[shunyadragon]

Modern science does make the belief in ancient Gods absurd. But they are absurd enough without science.

True, from the perspective of our knowledge in general of the history of humanity, and the diversity of the tribal ancient cultures and religions makes it paradoxical that any on would be the one and only true God and religion..

I am amazed you do have a case for God though, i must admit.

Different argument, but nonetheless, I believe that the only option is a more universal omnipotent God that reflects the nature of science, history, and not attached to one tribal cultural view. If not a universal God, than, of course no God(s).

 

[questfortruth]

Your wording does not change anything. Premise is the better word when used as a logical argument as you presented it. It remains the problem of being circular, because you assume God exists, which is the conclusion as I previous specifically described and defined with references.

No, I have written "Thesis". Not Assumption, Not Premise. Accept the Truth. If to write word "Thesis" the God of Existence exists, what ever you saying in opposite. The word Assumption is wrong, because I am not stupid. I am proving my thesis and it has become proven.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I have written "Thesis". Not Assumption, Not Premise. Accept the Truth. If to write word "Thesis" the God of Existence exists, what ever you saying in opposite. The word Assumption is wrong, because I am not stupid. I am proving my thesis and it has become proven.

Writing the word 'Thesis' does not change the nature of the argument on way or another. It remains circular by definition as cited.

What basis of 'evidence supports the initial statement concerning the existence of God?

 

[questfortruth]

Writing the word 'Thesis' does not change the nature of the argument on way or another. It remains circular by definition as cited.

What basis of 'evidence supports the initial statement concerning the existence of God?

Thesis is not Statement. In insist on thesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thesis is not Statement. In insist on thesis.

Incoherent.

Again . . . What basis of 'evidence' supports the initial statement concerning the existence of God?

 

[questfortruth]

supports the initial statement

Accept Creator. Write just once "thesis". LOL.

 

[questfortruth]

Your wording does not change anything.

"For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." Matthew 12:37.

 

[shunyadragon]

Accept Creator. Write just once "thesis". LOL.

Unethical editing of the post. Again . . . What basis of 'evidence' supports the initial statement concerning the existence of God?

Accepting something to 'exist' is not a basis for logically demonstrating that existence.