God and science

[DaniWhite]

Dear Science Community,

I am new to this forum and this is my first post. I would like to get to know your opinions and assessments of my questions. I did not study science and in school I was not the best in these topics. But now a new interest in these topics arises and I will read some biology, chemistry, physics and math books. But I cannot wait until I read through all these books to ask my questions. So I would like to get your scientific insights on the following questions and please excuse my lay non-scientific view on everything.

First of all a description of how I could imagine the universe and god could be. God is a creating life force. This force created the universe and the laws of physics, etc. Through trial and error this force develops itself and its creation further.

The big bang was the start. Now the universe develops itself and leads to life on earth. Maybe this is not the first big bang. Maybe the big bang before didn’t create life. So the universe starts all over again, changes its composition, and next time everything works well and a planet is in the perfect distance to a star and magically life begins.

And all our experiences as aware, living beings are fed to this life force. God experiences its own creation through us (our eyes, our experiences, our look on the creation). Now knows our perspective, our view on this creation. And maybe learns more and next time can create an even better existence.

Now a few questions where I hope to get your scientific view on.

 

1.)   How can something be created out of nothing? When you say, there is no god, no creator, then matter needs to pop out of nothing into the world. How can this happen? Is there a scientific law that says, yes that’s possible? I mean isn’t it the biggest wonder of all, that there is something instead of nothing. That there is an existing universe at all?

We live in a world with a lot of beauty, complexity, things working hand in hand and consciousness. Isn’t this a bit too much for just a coincidence where matter created itself out of nothing, and no one (no creator) cares that this just happened? Where does this will to beauty, complexity, etc come from? It seems to me, that something wants to live. Something wants to be complex, etc.

2.)   If you say, yes there is a god or a creator, is this easier or harder to explain? I mean god needs to create itself out of nothing. Is it easier for matter to be created out of nothing, or god to create itself out of nothing?

3.)   Will science ever be able to gain knowledge about god and give a definite answer about its existence in the future? Is it possible through new technology or the next Einstein to gain something that we do not have today, that will make it possible for science to say something about god, or will this be impossible forever no matter what?

4.)   Why can’t god be supernatural? When there is a creator who created the universe and the laws of physic. Why does the creator then have to abide by his / her own laws? Isn’t the creator bigger than live and can be supernatural?

Maybe an analogy of what I mean can help. The first person who invented chess set the rules.

The king can only move one field per round. Now let’s say the king has a little consciousness and says to himself. I can only move one field. More than one field is not possible, this would bend the rules. But now I as a human being can change the rules and say to myself my king can move 3 fields, and I just do it. I do not have to abide by the laws that I set in the first place, you know what I mean?

When something created gravity and atoms, etc. why can’t this something change the rules or live outside the ruleset?

I am really looking forward, to read your feedback!! Thank you for your time, I appreciate it.

Best regards,

Daniel

[Prometheus]

16 minutes ago, DaniWhite said:

1.)   How can something be created out of nothing? When you say, there is no god, no creator, then matter needs to pop out of nothing into the world. How can this happen? Is there a scientific law that says, yes that’s possible? I mean isn’t it the biggest wonder of all, that there is something instead of nothing. That there is an existing universe at all?

Why do you limit your options to 'god did it' or 'everything popped out of nothing'? What about it didn't start, i.e. it's always existed? What about 'we don't know'? Also, as i understand it physicists have found that things do simply pop into existence.

And yes, i'm frequently astonished by existence. Why does that imply god? 

 

21 minutes ago, DaniWhite said:

2.)   If you say, yes there is a god or a creator, is this easier or harder to explain? I mean god needs to create itself out of nothing. Is it easier for matter to be created out of nothing, or god to create itself out of nothing?

I like this question. Many people seem to question that the universe could either just pop into existence or that it has always existed - but are happy to ascribe these exact same properties to something they call 'god'. Either way something has this property - why not discard the middleman and simply ascribe it to the universe.

 

23 minutes ago, DaniWhite said:

3.)   Will science ever be able to gain knowledge about god and give a definite answer about its existence in the future? Is it possible through new technology or the next Einstein to gain something that we do not have today, that will make it possible for science to say something about god, or will this be impossible forever no matter what?

Depends how god is defined. A god that set up the conditions for the big bang but does not intervene at all thereafter would be impossible to detect, at least with our current capabilities. A personal god that answers prayers and parts seas has been pretty well debunked.

 

26 minutes ago, DaniWhite said:

4.)   Why can’t god be supernatural? When there is a creator who created the universe and the laws of physic. Why does the creator then have to abide by his / her own laws? Isn’t the creator bigger than live and can be supernatural?

Maybe an analogy of what I mean can help. The first person who invented chess set the rules.

The king can only move one field per round. Now let’s say the king has a little consciousness and says to himself. I can only move one field. More than one field is not possible, this would bend the rules. But now I as a human being can change the rules and say to myself my king can move 3 fields, and I just do it. I do not have to abide by the laws that I set in the first place, you know what I mean?

Such a god would be easy to detect - we would just look for instances where the laws of physics contradict themselves (i.e. the rules change) - seas start to part, lakes turn into wine, whatever other crazy stuff you think a god might do. There is no sign of such a god.

[Thorham]

2 hours ago, DaniWhite said:

1.)   How can something be created out of nothing? When you say, there is no god, no creator, then matter needs to pop out of nothing into the world. How can this happen? Is there a scientific law that says, yes that’s possible? I mean isn’t it the biggest wonder of all, that there is something instead of nothing. That there is an existing universe at all?

Scientific nothing? No problem. Happens all the time. Isn't nothing to begin with. Absolute nothingness? Likely not a chance.

2 hours ago, DaniWhite said:

4.)   Why can’t god be supernatural? When there is a creator who created the universe and the laws of physic. Why does the creator then have to abide by his / her own laws? Isn’t the creator bigger than live and can be supernatural?

Why does a creator being have to be supernatural at all? And also, what is supernatural anyway? Something that goes beyond ordinary nature as we know it?

Edited November 10, 2017 by Thorham

[studiot]

A friendly well thought out response, Prometheus. +1

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, DaniWhite said:

1.)   How can something be created out of nothing? When you say, there is no god, no creator, then matter needs to pop out of nothing into the world. How can this happen? Is there a scientific law that says, yes that’s possible? I mean isn’t it the biggest wonder of all, that there is something instead of nothing. That there is an existing universe at all?

Matter can be made denser. It can be squeezed down so far you overcome the degeneracy pressure of electrons. You can mash it all down even further into an ultra-dense substance made only of neutrons. Even further and gravity itself will take over and create a black hole.

This is part of the evolution of the universe the Big Bang Theory shows. The whole universe was once an extremely hot, extremely dense and tiny place that expanded and cooled over time

9 hours ago, DaniWhite said:

2.)   If you say, yes there is a god or a creator, is this easier or harder to explain? I mean god needs to create itself out of nothing. Is it easier for matter to be created out of nothing, or god to create itself out of nothing?

I think it's harder to explain in natural terms. I've never come across anything that didn't have a natural explanation. And of course, we know that matter doesn't have to come from nothing.

 

9 hours ago, DaniWhite said:

3.)   Will science ever be able to gain knowledge about god and give a definite answer about its existence in the future? Is it possible through new technology or the next Einstein to gain something that we do not have today, that will make it possible for science to say something about god, or will this be impossible forever no matter what?

God would need to become observable in a scientifically meaningful manner. Science needs some consistency with which to base predictions on, and no god(s) have been capable of providing that.

 

9 hours ago, DaniWhite said:

4.)   Why can’t god be supernatural? When there is a creator who created the universe and the laws of physic. Why does the creator then have to abide by his / her own laws? Isn’t the creator bigger than live and can be supernatural?

So far, all gods I've heard about are supernatural. They can change physics and have abilities like omnipotence and omniscience. They don't have to obey the natural laws we observe everything else following.

To me, that sounds like pretty wishful thinking. Science is a process for observing and describing the natural world, and it needs to be free of wishes and faith. It needs to be trustworthy and not subject to our desires. Gods are supernatural, and I don't think natural methodology describes them. 

Perhaps they aren't necessary to science at all....

[Mario Finato Cestari]

          1.) This kind of questioning is so complex that it becomes difficult even to pinpoint questions about it; if we think that it is much more logical to believe that there is a creator who formed everything we now understand as our universe, what would be the origin of this creator? Was he alone the Alpha and the Omega, all and nothingness?

          As for the scientific laws that refer to this subject, in my understanding, there is none that is able to prove the existence or the nonexistence of a creator, so what is needed is necessary, sometimes the science is demanding and skeptical of more and not all of our universe is that simple.

          2.)I believe that both ways of thinking have the same difficulty of being explained, precisely because something comes out of nothing would be very complex, so much so that we are not even able to formulate hypotheses that actually make sense, and understand that everything comes from of a creator leads us to another question: "Who created the creator?"

          3.)The concept of God has always been more linked to religion than science, so I think it is very difficult for science to admit or even prove the existence of God, because in its own concept, belief is in itself a representation of trust and hope very beautiful and would lose all its meaning if it were simply reduced to facts and scientific proofs.

          4)Exactly, that is the point, we have to understand that currently all society in an official, logical and scientific way only believes in what complies with the rules of the current scientific method; it is very probable that even in a short period of time these rules will change, more proof of this is the history itself, so if even our most precise methods are not exact and immutable, how can we guarantee their reliability?

          In short, I come to the conclusion that the more we study and understand the perfection of our universe from astronomical bodies like stars to the atom it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that all this is simply the result of randomness, precisely because of what I believe in existence of God.

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Mario Finato Cestari said:

In short, I come to the conclusion that the more we study and understand the perfection of our universe from astronomical bodies like stars to the atom it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that all this is simply the result of randomness, precisely because of what I believe in existence of God.

1

In short, your belief is immaterial... oh I give up.

Believe what you want it won't change anything.

[seriously disabled]

The fact is that there are a lot of things we still don't know.

For example scientists still can't figure out the origin of life or how the human body really works.

For instance scientists assume that pain after an injury is caused by the brain but what if it's not? What if pain after injury is not caused by the brain but by something else?

[iNow]

So, the argument is:

  There are gaps in our knowledge

...therefore...

  Goddidit

Color me unconvinced. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Mario Finato Cestari said:

becomes increasingly difficult to believe that all this is simply the result of randomness, precisely because of what I believe in existence of God.

The alternative to goddidit is not “random”. That is a silly argument. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Mario Finato Cestari said:

In short, I come to the conclusion that the more we study and understand the perfection of our universe from astronomical bodies like stars to the atom it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that all this is simply the result of randomness, precisely because of what I believe in existence of God.

From The Salmon of Doubt by Douglas Adams:

Quote

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

 

[beecee]

On 11/10/2017 at 9:42 PM, DaniWhite said:

1.)   How can something be created out of nothing? When you say, there is no god, no creator, then matter needs to pop out of nothing into the world. How can this happen? Is there a scientific law that says, yes that’s possible? I mean isn’t it the biggest wonder of all, that there is something instead of nothing. That there is an existing universe at all?

Hi Dan....I was raised as a good Catholic boy, in fact I was an Altar boy at one time until caught taking a sip of the altar wine behind the altar one day! I am also a lay person as far as science is concerned and have no scientific qualifications, but did become really interested in it a long time ago, and boosted my limited knowledge by reading plenty of reputable material. Rather then answering your questions, I have a couple of interesting links that will explain how science, particularly astronomy/cosmology has pushed any need for any deity back to near oblivion.

The first I believe answers your question albeit with some speculation, "How can something be created out of nothing?"   https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Then the following video by Carl Sagan who I believe to be the best scientific educator I have seen or heard.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6bztIma03k

Science certainly does not know everything, but it is continually explaining more and more and showing that we really are nothing special in this great big wide awesome universe we inhabit and are simply a conglomeration of different elements that has arose through chemical reactions and evolved to what we are, and where we are today.

Edited November 11, 2017 by beecee

[koti]

On 10.11.2017 at 11:42 AM, DaniWhite said:

Dear Science Community,

I am new to this forum and this is my first post. I would like to get to know your opinions and assessments of my questions. I did not study science and in school I was not the best in these topics. But now a new interest in these topics arises and I will read some biology, chemistry, physics and math books. But I cannot wait until I read through all these books to ask my questions. So I would like to get your scientific insights on the following questions and please excuse my lay non-scientific view on everything.

First of all a description of how I could imagine the universe and god could be. God is a creating life force. This force created the universe and the laws of physics, etc. Through trial and error this force develops itself and its creation further.

The big bang was the start. Now the universe develops itself and leads to life on earth. Maybe this is not the first big bang. Maybe the big bang before didn’t create life. So the universe starts all over again, changes its composition, and next time everything works well and a planet is in the perfect distance to a star and magically life begins.

And all our experiences as aware, living beings are fed to this life force. God experiences its own creation through us (our eyes, our experiences, our look on the creation). Now knows our perspective, our view on this creation. And maybe learns more and next time can create an even better existence.

Now a few questions where I hope to get your scientific view on.

 

1.)   How can something be created out of nothing? When you say, there is no god, no creator, then matter needs to pop out of nothing into the world. How can this happen? Is there a scientific law that says, yes that’s possible? I mean isn’t it the biggest wonder of all, that there is something instead of nothing. That there is an existing universe at all?

We live in a world with a lot of beauty, complexity, things working hand in hand and consciousness. Isn’t this a bit too much for just a coincidence where matter created itself out of nothing, and no one (no creator) cares that this just happened? Where does this will to beauty, complexity, etc come from? It seems to me, that something wants to live. Something wants to be complex, etc.

2.)   If you say, yes there is a god or a creator, is this easier or harder to explain? I mean god needs to create itself out of nothing. Is it easier for matter to be created out of nothing, or god to create itself out of nothing?

3.)   Will science ever be able to gain knowledge about god and give a definite answer about its existence in the future? Is it possible through new technology or the next Einstein to gain something that we do not have today, that will make it possible for science to say something about god, or will this be impossible forever no matter what?

4.)   Why can’t god be supernatural? When there is a creator who created the universe and the laws of physic. Why does the creator then have to abide by his / her own laws? Isn’t the creator bigger than live and can be supernatural?

Maybe an analogy of what I mean can help. The first person who invented chess set the rules.

The king can only move one field per round. Now let’s say the king has a little consciousness and says to himself. I can only move one field. More than one field is not possible, this would bend the rules. But now I as a human being can change the rules and say to myself my king can move 3 fields, and I just do it. I do not have to abide by the laws that I set in the first place, you know what I mean?

When something created gravity and atoms, etc. why can’t this something change the rules or live outside the ruleset?

I am really looking forward, to read your feedback!! Thank you for your time, I appreciate it.

Best regards,

Daniel

Daniel, you will find that most of the science community has a similar view on the questions you ask. Prometheus wrote a nice coherent set of answers to your questions, I can add to his post that science is a wonderful, fun and interesting journey and it does not really deal with God and religion in general. I recommend you watch this two and a half minute video where one of the greatest physicists of all time gives you his general view on the subjects you ask about:
 

 

 

[Endercreeper01]

On 11/10/2017 at 5:15 AM, Prometheus said:

Why do you limit your options to 'god did it' or 'everything popped out of nothing'? What about it didn't start, i.e. it's always existed? What about 'we don't know'? Also, as i understand it physicists have found that things do simply pop into existence.

And yes, i'm frequently astonished by existence. Why does that imply god? 

 

I like this question. Many people seem to question that the universe could either just pop into existence or that it has always existed - but are happy to ascribe these exact same properties to something they call 'god'. Either way something has this property - why not discard the middleman and simply ascribe it to the universe.

 

Why would you suppose such a universe would exist in the first place? And what would make such a universe lead to the emergence of conscious entities?

Edited November 13, 2017 by Endercreeper01

[Prometheus]

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Why would you suppose such a universe would exist in the first place? 

First i wasn't necessarily stating the universe is like this, but asking why monotheists never even consider it as an option (and it is generally monotheists; polytheists, particularly some hindus, have no problem with it). I've asked many times in many places but never received an answer that doesn't boil down 'it must be because i can't fathom it being otherwise'. As far as i understand, our knowledge of physics/cosmology hasn't taken eternal existence off the table

Second, the god hypothesis is basically useless in making predictions. It explains precisely nothing in just about every case (not to mention the lack of evidence). Take this thread as a case. Can't fathom the universe having existed forever, or something coming out of nothing? No worries, invent a concept called god and say it created the universe. But  of course god has existed forever, he didn't just pop out of nothing.

Precisely nothing has been gained by saying the universe can't exist forever but something called god can. We have, however, added one more layer of complexity to the problem.

 

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Why would you suppose such a universe would exist in the first place? And what would make such a universe lead to the emergence of conscious entities?

Evolution seems up to the job. I don't understand the details of it, no one really does yet. Of course, our lack of understanding isn't evidence of god, it's evidence of our limitations and all the more reason to invest in basic sciences.

[Strange]

On 10/11/2017 at 11:42 AM, DaniWhite said:

1.)   How can something be created out of nothing?

There is no evidence for that so I wouldn’t say that. On the other hand, just because you, personally, find it implausible doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. That is the fallacy of arguing from incredulity/ignorance. 

On 10/11/2017 at 11:42 AM, DaniWhite said:

We live in a world with a lot of beauty, complexity, things working hand in hand and consciousness. Isn’t this a bit too much for just a coincidence where matter created itself out of nothing, and no one (no creator) cares that this just happened?

Beauty is in our heads, not the universe. We find things beautiful because we have grown up (evolved) with them. 

And, yes, the universe is complex. But I doubt a simple universe could exist. 

On 10/11/2017 at 11:42 AM, DaniWhite said:

Where does this will to beauty, complexity, etc come from?

Why do you think there is a will involved? That is just anthropomorphising the universe (and she hates that). 

It seems you are creating your own version of the universe and then trying to explain that, instead of understanding the universe as it is. 

[studiot]

7 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

And what would make such a universe lead to the emergence of conscious entities?

Emergent phenomena are a whole other can of worms that many make too mystic.

Do you know of any down to earth examples?

Prometheus, once again I like your dispassionate thinking. +1

Edited November 13, 2017 by studiot

[Endercreeper01]

11 hours ago, studiot said:

Emergent phenomena are a whole other can of worms that many make too mystic.

Do you know of any down to earth examples?

Prometheus, once again I like your dispassionate thinking. +1

Consciousness has no reason to exist in the mathematical framework of the universe. How could something which feels and experiences subjectively possibly arise from a mathematical system such as the brain? The universe shouldn't fundamentally be any more than mathematics and geometry..

[Strange]

49 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The universe shouldn't fundamentally be any more than mathematics and geometry..

Why not?

[Endercreeper01]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Why not?

Because it is composed of mathematical systems.

[Strange]

9 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Because it is composed of mathematical systems.

So it is mathematical because it is mathematical. Profound. Or fallacious. 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

[Endercreeper01]

11 hours ago, Strange said:

So it is mathematical because it is mathematical. Profound. Or fallacious. 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

You missed my point. If you look through the lens of science, the universe cannot be described as anything more than a mathematical system.

[Strange]

16 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If you look through the lens of science, the universe cannot be described as anything more than a mathematical system.

Although science tries to quantify things not everything can be described mathematically. 

And, of course, the fact that our brains are able to describe the world using mathematics doesn’t mean that the world is inherently mathematical. We can also describe the universe using poetry. It doesn’t mean it is a poem. 

(Map vs territory, etc. )

[studiot]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

not everything can be described mathematically. 

At last +1

17 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If you look through the lens of science, the universe cannot be described as anything more than a mathematical system.

Godel killed Hilbert's dream a nearly century ago.

[tar]

21 hours ago, Strange said:

Although science tries to quantify things not everything can be described mathematically. 

And, of course, the fact that our brains are able to describe the world using mathematics doesn’t mean that the world is inherently mathematical. We can also describe the universe using poetry. It doesn’t mean it is a poem. 

(Map vs territory, etc. )

Daniel,

This post of Strange's,  along with everybody else's response, and the Feynman response, I think addresses most of your questions.

Science is not the only way to describe the place, and neither is poetry.  (or God)

There is sometimes a political aspect to the divide between religious folk and scientifically minded folk in terms of funding, or medicinal approaches to diseases, or moral questions like the right to life or the right to choose to end a life (abortion, death penalty, end of life suicide, etc.)  Here the religion we are talking about is not God per se, but what human beings in the last 4000 years have ascribed to their god's will and judgement concerning our behavior in this place.

One thing that stood out to me in Feynman's comments was that he is alright "not knowing".   I think this feeling of being sufficiently in control of things, to not need answers to everything is partially a personality trait and might be found more often in people of high intelligence, which might also correspond to scientific minds,  which unfortunately causes smart people to be embarrassed by any sign of weakness, or need for comfort and answers, and at the same time, causes people that actually need the answers to feel that smarter people, are fooling themselves and don't know nearly what they think they know.  Thus a further divide between science and religion.  Scientist think they know the best way to be right about the place, and religious people feel they know the best way to be right about the place, and neither camp gives the other camp their due.   

So to answer the questions you raised, in my own mind, I have decided to consider all human facilities as facilities that the universe has, as we are in and of the place, and cannot remove ourselves from it, or get outside it, and we are separated from the truth, by tremendous amounts of time and space, so one can either accept the fact , embrace it, reject it, adore it, hate it, love it, find it amazing or terrifying .   And this acceptance or rejection of the place does nothing to the place but piss other people off if you get too established in your own take.

Regards, TAR