Fact or Fiction Scientific Proof that God Exists?

[Asmodean Prime]

Hey all, I’m a scientific atheist and this website kind of rubs my beliefs the wrong way. Does this make sense to you? The Big Bang Theory, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the impossibility of an infinite past all support the universe having a beginning.

http://powertochange.com/questions/qna7.html

[Sophia]

I think part of the reason it seems to rub the wrong way is that it's spefically meantioning scientific proofs from an obviously biased viewpoint in order to pull those 'scientists' toward it's hopeful conclusion of conversion to christianity. I myself like scientific proof though I am no scientist and much of the laws and such I have yet to decipher, especially to see if this website is bending them or not...
'Sophia'  :doubt:

[Whitney]

Basically what the site is doing is misrepresenting the BB as being understood as a beginning where nothing existed before it...the idea behind the BB is that we can trace back the universe to what scientists call a singularity.  Nothing about the BB theory states that there was or had to be nothing before this singularity.

As for the universe dying out, scientists are still looking into dark matter and if there is enough to counteract the expanding universe eventually...it still isn't beyond possibility for a big crunch to occur but that's not necessarily a popular theory right now.  String theory theoretically allows for there being a multiverse rather than just our universe and something having to do with branes crossing and creating this and other universes...from what I understand it also allows for this to be an infinite process.

The whole idea of infinity being possible is based on mathematics where if you divide infinity you get infinity...from my understanding it is a theoretical math that is useful for doing certain types of equations but I don't think it would be right to say that it is necessarily what would really be the case if we knew infinite 'time' existed.  Also theists don't have a problem claiming God is infinite so obviously they really don't have a problem with the idea of infinity being possible.  I also think there is a big difference between comparing an infinite number of books (objects) with an infinite amount of time (concept).

Especially when we look at infinity in relationship to a multiverse and the possibility of there being some sort of space time curve where time actually curves back onto itself (i really don't understand the idea of time being curved as I've read as a possibility)...I guess it is also possible we are in some sort of time loop where universes get created, destroyed and others are reborn.  I'm not an expert on this stuff, I'm just mentioning things I've read about...they may not all necessarily be valid.

I think the one thing we know about the universe is that there is tons more we don't know than we do know.  I just keep up slightly with new theories and the ways in which current ones are developing and I think there are enough of them which don't rule out the possibility of infinity that it is premature for anyone to claim infinity is impossible.  Even if the universe is finite that wouldn't make a god any more likely because it would beg the question of how god is able to be infinite.


In the next section it turns into an intelligent design argument...of course a universe which can support life would appear fine tuned to life that exists in that universe...we wouldn't exist if the universe either hadn't formed into something non-chaotic (isn't there a theory that states chaos has a tendency to form order?) then life couldn't exist.  The earth works for us because we evolved here, if life started on any other planet it would look perfect for that planet yet not for ours.

Oh, typical....the website concluded it was the Judeo-Christian God...that's a huge leap in logic...those who make this jump make me wonder if they have studied any religion other than their own.  Anyway, I'm not one of the best representatives of science on this forum so I'm sure someone else will provide a better response.

Btw, welcome to the forum.

[donkeyhoty]

Regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics/Entropy:  The religious consistently misuse/misinterpret or outright lie about what it actually entails.  Here's an article about thermodynamics, and the quote that follows is the important part with the essential part in bold http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Evol ... #anchor_77

Second law paradox



Aside from this divisional debate as to which branch of thermodynamics governs evolution; there is also the “second law paradox” which questions the universal tendency for disorganization in isolated systems as contrasted with the universal tendency for organization in evolving systems.  



To provide a typical example of misuse of the second law in scientific circles, in her 1997 book What is Sex biologist Lynn Margulis, one of the primary originators of the endosymbiotic theory, declares: "the famous second law of thermodynamics, the Grim Reaper of nature, states that disorder (entropy) in any closed system must increase.”  Her technical mistake here is the misuse of the word “closed system”, implying energy but not matter may cross the system boundary, with the correct word “isolated system”, implying that nothing may cross the system boundary.  In this manner, Margulis connects the Grim Reaper of life with the wrong version of the second law thus stimulating further confusion, and hence a perceived paradox.



There is no apparent paradox, however, for those as fundamentally trained in thermodynamics.  The resolution of this paradox acknowledges that nature seeks to minimize free energy H â€" TS in open systems, which exchange energy with their surroundings acting as a thermal reservoir, and to maximize entropy S in isolated systems. The paradox arises out of misapplied assumption that all systems are isolated.



Looked at another way, the entropy of the isolated system (e.g. the universe) does increase, just as the second law requires it; however, the paradox resolves because the second law does ''not'' require the entropy of open systems (e.g. lifeforms) to increase. That is, the entropy of the universe tends to increase, however, within this Universe, there are localized decreases of entropy (lifeforms) at the expense of even higher entropy increases elsewhere (e.g. food burning, solar energy generation, etc.), the net effect being an overall increase of entropy of the universe.

[joeactor]

As for Origin of the Universe, I've always liked the "Quantum Foam" line of thought.

Here's a link, but there's plenty more info out on the web:
http://rational-church.com/universe.htm

[Ingodwetrust]

proof god exists!
(a + b^n) / n = x, hence God exists; reply!

[skeptigirl]

Hey all, I'm a scientific atheist and this website kind of rubs my beliefs the wrong way. Does this make sense to you? The Big Bang Theory, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the impossibility of an infinite past all support the universe having a beginning.

http://powertochange.com/questions/qna7.html

Isn't there a Commandment against bearing false witness? Do you exclude your particular lie, that you are an atheist, from that Commandment?

Why else would you be claiming to be an atheist while promoting religion in the same post?

[Eclecticsaturn]

Skeptigirl- ya i kinda got the same feeling

Inzueswetrust - thanks for the proof. im a believer now, .

[izult]

I like how they've got the audacity to quote Hawking, who has clearly stated that he does not believe in god.  I tend to never trust quotes with ... anyhow just cause they tend to take out the parts that don't support their stance when they do that.  

Nice observation about their conclusion that it is of course the Judeo-Christian God that created the universe and everything in it.   I guess all the other gods were too busy?  If they weren't so wrapped up in being right they'd see how arrogant they sound.

[rlrose328]

That article/blog/whatever is just more of the typical religious straw men they always throw out.  Someone posts something like that and all of the religionists nod and repeat.  No one ever bothers to check with real scientists.  That Second Law of Thermodynamics has been reputed many many times, but they always trot that one out.

AND the "everything must have a beginning"... except, of course, their creator.  <yawn>  

While it is quite boring to read all of that all the time, it's quite disturbing how many people will agree with every word.  And those are the people running our country.  

[SteveS]

AND the "everything must have a beginning"... except, of course, their creator.

Indeed.  A common theme of mine is that the religious frequently dig holes so deep that even they cannot climb back out of them.  This is a good example.  Some other favorites of mine,

We must doubt everything - we can't be certain of anything!  Okay, so how can you be certain about your faith if we must doubt everything?

We can't trust any of our senses and perceptions completely - they could be deceiving us!  Okay, so if all our experiences could be deceptive, then might not revelations be wrong?

We are limited and flawed creatures, so we must trust in a perfect being!  Okay, if we're limited and flawed, how could we identify which being is perfect?

So on and so forth.  They start with these grand accusations and utterly fail to realize that they've just sunk their own argument!  If we accept their premise as true, then we cannot accept their conclusion as true, and they just don't seem to realize this --- they want to free their own conclusions from the ramifications of their own premises without offering up any logical reason for doing so.  These arguments are all self-contradictory.  Frustrating, ain't it?

[Will]

Alvin Plantinga is a hack; an apologist without ground to stand on who always begs the question and has a habit of presupposing the existence of both meaning and god in the universe before setting his little axoims.

Also, the BB theory says that it's easily possible that the Big Bang was a result of the previous Big Crunch, which was the cause of the previous Big Bang. This may have gone on forever. Not only that, but the science of a big bang singularity is so far outside the understanding of science, to formulate hypothesis around it is a waste of time.

[Allhailtuna]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution!
I mean, seriously, for evolution to happen, there would have to be some huge source of energy floating around in the sky. There's no way we wouldn't have found that if it existed.

[Tom62]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution!
I mean, seriously, for evolution to happen, there would have to be some huge source of energy floating around in the sky. There's no way we wouldn't have found that if it existed.

I agree with you completely. The 2nd law of thermodynamics clearly decribes how species are changing over a period of time with the help of a huge source of energy floating in the sky (or even better outside time and space)

[Churchworker]

Its a fact because Jesus told me and he never has lied.