What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?

[David Davidovich]

What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.

Interesting questions, Frank. So, I would say for science, that the continued discovery of water on extraterrestrial bodies and planets in addition to the discovery of earth-like exoplanets throughout the cosmos. And I say that because from what I recall, Christians used to boast about how unique our planet was in addition to how unique life-giving water was on Earth, and how that was proof that God created the planet Earth as one of his crowning and unique achievements in the universe.

And for Christians, I would guess the second coming of Christ where everyone is supposed to know and understand that it is Jesus who has returned according to Bible verses such as Revelation 1:7 and Matthew 24:30

 

[joelr]

The triple alpha process is extremely temperature dependent though, is it not? And the lifetime of berylium -8 is short. I dunno, man; this looks pretty fine-tuned to me...

Alpha Fusion Chain
Once all of the hydrogen in a gas is converted into helium-4, fusion stops until the temperature rises to about 108K. At this temperature, helium-4 is converted into heavier elements, predominantly carbon-12 and oxygen.-16, both of which are multiples of helium-4 in their proton and neutron composition. To create these isotopes, beryllium-8 must first be created from two helium-4 nuclei, but this unstable isotope, with a lifetime of only 2.6 10-16 seconds, rapidly decays back into helium-4.

r

It may look fine tuned to you, but it doesn't look fine tuned to an astrophysicist.

Fred Adams is a physics professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He is the recipient of the Helen B. Warner Prize from the American Astronomical Society,

Astrophysicists have discussed fine-tuning so much that many people take it as a given that our universe is preternaturally fit for complex structures. Even skeptics of the multiverse accept fine-tuning; they simply think it must have some other explanation. But in fact the fine-tuning has never been rigorously demonstrated. We do not really know what laws of physics are necessary for the development of astrophysical structures, which are in turn necessary for the development of life. Recent work on stellar evolution, nuclear astrophysics, and structure formation suggest that the case for fine-tuning is less compelling than previously thought. A wide variety of possible universes could support life. Our universe is not as special as it might seem.......

A second example of possible fine-tuning arises in the context of carbon production. After moderately large stars have fused the hydrogen in their central cores into helium, helium itself becomes the fuel. Through a complicated set of reactions, helium is burned into carbon and oxygen. Because of their important role in nuclear physics, helium nuclei are given a special name: alpha particles. The most common nuclei are composed of one, three, four, and five alpha particles. The nucleus with two alpha particles, beryllium-8, is conspicuously absent, and for a good reason: It is unstable in our universe.

The instability of beryllium creates a serious bottleneck for the creation of carbon. As stars fuse helium nuclei together to become beryllium, the beryllium nuclei almost immediately decay back into their constituent parts. At any given time, the stellar core maintains a small but transient population of beryllium. These rare beryllium nuclei can interact with helium to produce carbon. Because the process ultimately involves three helium nuclei, it is called the triple-alpha reaction. But the reaction is too slow to produce the amount of carbon observed in our universe.

To resolve this discrepancy, physicist Fred Hoyle predicted in 1953 that the carbon nucleus has to have a resonant state at a specific energy, as if it were a little bell that rang with a certain tone. Because of this resonance, the reaction rates for carbon production are much larger than they would be otherwise—large enough to explain the abundance of carbon found in our universe. The resonance was later measured in the laboratory at the predicted energy level.
The worry is that, in other universes, with alternate strengths of the forces, the energy of this resonance could be different, and stars would not produce enough carbon. Carbon production is compromised if the energy level is changed by more than about 4 percent. This issue is sometimes called the triple-alpha fine-tuning problem.

Fortunately, this problem has a simple solution. What nuclear physics takes away, it also gives. Suppose nuclear physics did change by enough to neutralize the carbon resonance. Among the possible changes of this magnitude, about half would have the side effect of making beryllium stable, so the loss of the resonance would become irrelevant. In such alternate universes, carbon would be produced in the more logical manner of adding together alpha particles one at a time. Helium could fuse into beryllium, which could then react with additional alpha particles to make carbon. There is no fine-tuning problem after all.

The Not-So-Fine Tuning of the Universe

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The triple alpha process is extremely temperature dependent though, is it not? And the lifetime of berylium -8 is short. I dunno, man; this looks pretty fine-tuned to me...

...

Have you ever read enough articles about the problem of Boltzmann Brains?

So what is the likelihood of being a Boltzmann Brain? If you google that - "the likelihood of being a Boltzmann Brain" you will find by just reading the page of the google search result that science can't agree on that.
In short science rests in part on the assumption that the universe is law-like. In human everyday words that the universe is orderly and must make rationally abstract sense to us. That is in a sense no different than the idea that God is orderly and must make rationally abstract sense to us.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Have you ever read enough articles about the problem of Boltzmann Brains?

So what is the likelihood of being a Boltzmann Brain? If you google that - "the likelihood of being a Boltzmann Brain" you will find by just reading the page of the google search result that science can't agree on that.
In short science rests in part on the assumption that the universe is law-like. In human everyday words that the universe is orderly and must make rationally abstract sense to us. That is in a sense no different than the idea that God is orderly and must make rationally abstract sense to us.

I’m not familiar with the Boltzmann Brain concept. I’ve heard it mentioned on here a few times, but I’m yet to research it. Thanks for the heads up, I will look into.

I do know, from reading quite widely on the subject of quantum mechanics, that there is no more consensus among quantum physicists about the fundamental substance, structure and dynamics of the natural world, than there is among theologians about the nature of the divine, or among philosophers about the nature of consciousness.

This is in not to negate or devalue science; uncertainty, doubt, and intellectual humility are absolutely vital qualities for honestly pursuing any avenue of human enquiry. But when people argue that science offers certainty, in contrast to religion and philosophy, which can offer only endless debate, they haven’t been paying attention, and are just plain wrong. As this quote from quantum physicist and author Michael Brooks, on the ontological status of the wave function in QM, should illustrate;

“While Niels Bohr preferred to think that psi is nothing more real than a forecast - a declaration of information about a potential state - I consider it to be the weather itself.
Feel free to disagree. Plenty of people do, and I with them, and so we go on, no closer to resolving the argument which Jerome (Cardano, 16th Century Milanese mathematician, physician and astronomer) unwittingly started by opening up the worlds of probability and imaginary numbers. In Vienna, I sat at tables where grown men and women would agree on the facts of an experiment and then disagree entirely about what had actually happened.”

- Michael Brooks, The Quantum Astrologer’s Handbook.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It may look fine tuned to you, but it doesn't look fine tuned to an astrophysicist.

Fred Adams is a physics professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He is the recipient of the Helen B. Warner Prize from the American Astronomical Society,

Astrophysicists have discussed fine-tuning so much that many people take it as a given that our universe is preternaturally fit for complex structures. Even skeptics of the multiverse accept fine-tuning; they simply think it must have some other explanation. But in fact the fine-tuning has never been rigorously demonstrated. We do not really know what laws of physics are necessary for the development of astrophysical structures, which are in turn necessary for the development of life. Recent work on stellar evolution, nuclear astrophysics, and structure formation suggest that the case for fine-tuning is less compelling than previously thought. A wide variety of possible universes could support life. Our universe is not as special as it might seem.......

A second example of possible fine-tuning arises in the context of carbon production. After moderately large stars have fused the hydrogen in their central cores into helium, helium itself becomes the fuel. Through a complicated set of reactions, helium is burned into carbon and oxygen. Because of their important role in nuclear physics, helium nuclei are given a special name: alpha particles. The most common nuclei are composed of one, three, four, and five alpha particles. The nucleus with two alpha particles, beryllium-8, is conspicuously absent, and for a good reason: It is unstable in our universe.

The instability of beryllium creates a serious bottleneck for the creation of carbon. As stars fuse helium nuclei together to become beryllium, the beryllium nuclei almost immediately decay back into their constituent parts. At any given time, the stellar core maintains a small but transient population of beryllium. These rare beryllium nuclei can interact with helium to produce carbon. Because the process ultimately involves three helium nuclei, it is called the triple-alpha reaction. But the reaction is too slow to produce the amount of carbon observed in our universe.

To resolve this discrepancy, physicist Fred Hoyle predicted in 1953 that the carbon nucleus has to have a resonant state at a specific energy, as if it were a little bell that rang with a certain tone. Because of this resonance, the reaction rates for carbon production are much larger than they would be otherwise—large enough to explain the abundance of carbon found in our universe. The resonance was later measured in the laboratory at the predicted energy level.
The worry is that, in other universes, with alternate strengths of the forces, the energy of this resonance could be different, and stars would not produce enough carbon. Carbon production is compromised if the energy level is changed by more than about 4 percent. This issue is sometimes called the triple-alpha fine-tuning problem.

Fortunately, this problem has a simple solution. What nuclear physics takes away, it also gives. Suppose nuclear physics did change by enough to neutralize the carbon resonance. Among the possible changes of this magnitude, about half would have the side effect of making beryllium stable, so the loss of the resonance would become irrelevant. In such alternate universes, carbon would be produced in the more logical manner of adding together alpha particles one at a time. Helium could fuse into beryllium, which could then react with additional alpha particles to make carbon. There is no fine-tuning problem after all.

The Not-So-Fine Tuning of the Universe

Yes indeed. One could spend months researching the Fine Tuned Universe and come up with 100s of interpretations, explanations, conflicting theories etc. That was sort of my original point.

I first came across it in Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time, and again in more detail, in a book called In Search of The Multiverse by John Gribbin. The jury is still out and the debate continues.

 

[Audie]

I’m not familiar with the Boltzmann Brain concept. I’ve heard it mentioned on here a few times, but I’m yet to research it. Thanks for the heads up, I will look into.

I do know, from reading quite widely on the subject of quantum mechanics, that there is no more consensus among quantum physicists about the fundamental substance, structure and dynamics of the natural world, than there is among theologians about the nature of the divine, or among philosophers about the nature of consciousness.

This is in not to negate or devalue science; uncertainty, doubt, and intellectual humility are absolutely vital qualities for honestly pursuing any avenue of human enquiry. But when people argue that science offers certainty, in contrast to religion and philosophy, which can offer only endless debate, they haven’t been paying attention, and are just plain wrong. As this quote from quantum physicist and author Michael Brooks, on the ontological status of the wave function in QM, should illustrate;

“While Niels Bohr preferred to think that psi is nothing more real than a forecast - a declaration of information about a potential state - I consider it to be the weather itself.
Feel free to disagree. Plenty of people do, and I with them, and so we go on, no closer to resolving the argument which Jerome (Cardano, 16th Century Milanese mathematician, physician and astronomer) unwittingly started by opening up the worlds of probability and imaginary numbers. In Vienna, I sat at tables where grown men and women would agree on the facts of an experiment and then disagree entirely about what had actually happened.”

- Michael Brooks, The Quantum Astrologer’s Handbook.

Uncertainty and doubt, ie lack of faith are
not exactly considered vital in pusuit of
anything religious.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Uncertainty and doubt, ie lack of faith are
not exactly considered vital in pusuit of
anything religious.

Without uncertainty and doubt, there would be no need for faith.

 

[Audie]

Without uncertainty and doubt, there would be no need for faith.

Are you contraficting tbe fact that faith
is a highest value in Christianity?
Belief with no evidence, belief despite all
evidence?

Could hatdly be more opposite from
the way scuence works.
Or from what you termed, what was it,
honest inquiry?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Are you contraficting tbe fact that faith
is a highest value in Christianity?
Belief with no evidence, belief despite all
evidence?

Could hatdly be more opposite from
the way scuence works.
Or from what you termed, what was it,
honest inquiry?

Love, I would say, is the quality of highest value in Christianity. That matters more to me than the nature, divine or otherwise, of Jesus, the meaning of the Trinity, the truth, literal or metaphorical, of the resurrection, or any other point of religious doctrine. Honest enquiry has brought me to this indefinite conclusion.

 

[Audie]

Love, I would say, is the quality of highest value in Christianity. That matters more to me than the nature, divine or otherwise, of Jesus, the meaning of the Trinity, the truth, literal or metaphorical, of the resurrection, or any other point of religious doctrine. Honest enquiry has brought me to this indefinite conclusion.

I said A highest value.
Maybe you could comment
on "belief despite evidence"
and how that is innimicable to
honest enquiry, instead of "love ".

 

[RestlessSoul]

I said A highest value.
Maybe you could comment
on "belief despite evidence"
and how that is innimicable to
honest enquiry, instead of "love ".

I don’t know what you mean by belief despite evidence. My belief in God is based on the overwhelming evidence I have found in my heart.

 

[Audie]

I don’t know what you mean by belief despite evidence. My belief in God is based on the overwhelming evidence I have found in my heart.

I was not talking about you or your
emotional approach to enquiry.

I was talking abput how faith is not
a good approach to enquiry.

Regard svp the definition of "faith".

Faith involves no enquiry at all.
other than avoiding it.

And example of " faith" as contrast / contrary
fact based intellevtually honest inquirty -

".....even if all the evidence in the universe
turned against yec i would still be yec because
that is what the bible seems to say".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was not talking about you ir your
emotional approach to enquiry.

I was talking abput how faith is not
a good approach to enquiry.

Regard svp the definition of "faith".

Faith involves no enquiry at all.
other than avoiding it.

And example of " faith" as contrast / contrary
fact based intellevtually honest inquirty -

".....even if all the evidence in the universe
turned against yec i would still be yec because
that is what the bible seems to say".

So what is the meaning of life with only evidence?

 

[joelr]

Yes indeed. One could spend months researching the Fine Tuned Universe and come up with 100s of interpretations, explanations, conflicting theories etc. That was sort of my original point.

I first came across it in Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time, and again in more detail, in a book called In Search of The Multiverse by John Gribbin. The jury is still out and the debate continues.

Gribbin is a good author.

 

[gnostic]

I don’t know what you mean by belief despite evidence. My belief in God is based on the overwhelming evidence I have found in my heart.

That’s call “faith”, not “evidence”.

Faith is about trust or conviction in the acceptance of a belief...it doesn’t require physical evidence to personally validate one’s belief.

You are confusing faith and evidence as if they were the one and the same...they are not the same.

Faith comes from internally, much like personal opinions, desires, preferences (eg likes, dislikes).