God and science

[iNow]

43 minutes ago, Bermendy said:

I have full faith on the both God and Science. God has created everything and science is trying to make them fruitful. 

Which god?

[Endercreeper01]

On 3/28/2018 at 9:32 PM, iNow said:

Which god?

God refers to a higher power at work. Different versions of god only exist because of the different religions, but they all are really describing the same fundamental concept of a higher power at work in the universe.

[beecee]

40 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

God refers to a higher power at work. Different versions of god only exist because of the different religions, but they all are really describing the same fundamental concept of a higher power at work in the universe.

But God is just superfluous and unecessary to explain that which generally has already been explained by simpler means, and that of which we are ignorant of, remain just that, without any "god of the gaps"nonsense.

[Endercreeper01]

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

But God is just superfluous and unecessary to explain that which generally has already been explained by simpler means, and that of which we are ignorant of, remain just that, without any "god of the gaps"nonsense.

God is supposed to be ultimately responsible for everything that exists around a consciousness, for the purpose of allowing the existence of a consciousness within what god has created for the consciousness.  

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

God is supposed to be ultimately responsible for everything that exists around a consciousness, for the purpose of allowing the existence of a consciousness within what god has created for the consciousness.  

Again I find it totally invalid, unnecessary and mythical to invoke an unscientific concept, when it is generally not needed and explained simpler by science. 

[swansont]

On 6/1/2018 at 5:42 AM, Endercreeper01 said:

God is supposed to be ultimately responsible for everything that exists around a consciousness, for the purpose of allowing the existence of a consciousness within what god has created for the consciousness.  

!

Moderator Note

However, this does not address the questions in the OP, and is therefore off-topic. You persisted, despite many attempts by participants who tried to steer you back to the topic. Further, preaching is against the rules.

 

Many posts have been split off to the trash.

 

[Severian]

On 10/11/2017 at 10:42 AM, 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?

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?

I am going to try and answer these from a completely sceintific perspective, because I don't think they have been very well answered yet, no offence.

1. Science has conservation laws that prevent some things being created or destroyed. Mainly these are a consequency of symmetries in the laws of physics. For example, energy can't be created or destroyed, which is a consequnce of time translation symmetry of the laws of physics (the laws today are the same as yesterday). Particle number is not necessary conserved, though fermion number is. So electrons, for example can't be created unless a positron is also created, and they must "use" energy that is already there - they can't just create it. Photons however can just be created as long as there is enough energy.

So the problem with the Big Bang creation is not really where does the stuff come from, but where does the energy come from. And indeed, was there a space-time background on which to build it? While we actually have no idea how the moment of the Big Bang happened (there is no data on this whatsoever) there is no reason to believe that it is not possible theoretically. Even if the moment of the Big Bang were the first moment in time, then one cannot apply a symmetry argument to time translations beyond this boundary and therefore (logically) can't insist on energy conservation.

One cannot say "why" the Big Bang happened, but sceince does not attempt to ask why - it only asks how.

2. I don't think it is any easier of harder to be honest. (But see 3.)

3. God (that is, some being with power to change the laws of physics) is by definition transparent to science. Science relys on observations and only declares an obervation as valid if it is reproducible. If you do an experiment twice and get different answers, you need to figure out why by making more observations. And if you get a particular result only once and cannot reproduce it, you throw it away assuming it is faulty. Any act of God would be an irrepreducible event and not be interpretable with science. Science wouldn't even consider it. (This is in much the same way that an individual's actions are themselves not valid scientific events - it is only why you analyse behaviours of groups that you can then say something about individuals in a statistical sense.)

4. Presumably He doesn't have to abide by the laws of physics. To my mind, this is pretty central to the definition of God in the first place.

[universaltheory]

On 10/11/2017 at 1:42 PM, 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.

Best regards,

Daniel

God is speculated to be the last statement to finalize the puzzle of our reality from the subjective point of view, and science will never give u a final answer to our reality cause by doing so; skepticism-curiosity and inquisitive will be over and science will sieze to be only to turn into theology! Perhaps if one day science can reach the level of dealing with that ping-pong dragon; it will reduce it to a catalyst or stimulus sort of entity; which is also religiously unwelcome!

But never the less; science will one day tell us why do we believe and why do we have to believe in the first place! Such that;

1- you have the right to believe in what gives you good purpose and hope in life even if you can not prove it for logical purposes

2- you are free to logically evaluate any claim made about God because if you don't do so you only prove that God is dishonest with reality and thus making your belief in the creator to be meaningless

3- you r under civil obligation (as a citizen of the universe) to respect science as the only available tool through which reality can be decided subjectively as Godship creative ability

Edited July 11, 2018 by universaltheory

[Alter2Ego]

On 11/10/2017 at 2:42 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.

 

Daniel

DaniWhite:

You seem to have disappeared from the forum.  That said, perhaps you will return and provide a credible explanation for how, after the supposed big bang,  "...the universe develops itself and leads to life on earth."  Do elaborate on how our fine-tuned universe could possibly be the result of undirected events.

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

[beecee]

39 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

DaniWhite:

You seem to have disappeared from the forum.  That said, perhaps you will return and provide a credible explanation for how, after the supposed big bang,  "...the universe develops itself and leads to life on earth."  Do elaborate on how our fine-tuned universe could possibly be the result of undirected events.

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4a7F6dOdlc

https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

We arose/evolved because the universe is the way it is. If it wasn't, we would not probably have evolved.

The BB does not tell us how the universe was created: More correctly it tells us how the universe/spacetime evolved from t+10-43 seconds.

Brief summary probably goes like this:

[1] In the first instant of the evolution of spacetime, the four forces were combined into one superforce.

[2] As spacetime expanded, temperatures and pressures started dropping and as a result the superforce started to decouple into the four forces we know of today, gravity being the first.

[3] This created false vacuums and phase transitions, and enabled our first fundamentals to evolve during this phase. [quarks and electrons]

[4] As spacetime further expanded, pressures and temperatures continued dropping and these first fundamentals combined to form protons and neutrons, or simple atomic nuclei.

[5] After 380,000 years temperatures were such that electrons were able to couple with the nuclei, forming our first element/s hydrogen and helium.

[6] Gravitational collapse began and at the core of these gas clouds, fusion began...our first stars.

[7] These stars went super and hyper nova, spreading further heavier elements throughout the universe.

[8] More stars formed along with planets from left over debris by the same gravitational collapse process.

[9] On at least one of these planets conditions were such that Abiogenesis occured.

[10] Then evolution of these fundamental basic living organisms took place and voila!! here we are!!

Edited July 12, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

On 8/8/2018 at 6:54 AM, jawediqbal said:

yes, there is a God, he created human, earth, sky, Moon, sun, stars, aer & everything...
these things cannot be created itself. 
Do you think it created by accidentally? 

(URL removed by mod; see rule 2.7)

!

Moderator Note

This is not on-topic with the OP, and is merely preaching. Both of those are in violation of our rules.

Thus, a host of posts have been split to the trashcan.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

More posts have been hidden as being OT, and a hijack (which started out OK, but then veered away) of the discussion has been split off

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116056-hijack-from-god-and-science/