You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
God and Science
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Quote from peilthetraveler:
And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I will be found of youâ Jeremiah 29:13,14
"Woe is me, my mother, That you have borne me, A man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth!" - Jeremiah 10:15
The old believe everything, the middle-aged suspect everything; the young know everything. (Anonymous quote)
from a writer at pajamasmedia.com:
----------------------------------------
December 10, 2009-
Last week I was on a university panel formed to debate the issue of science and religion. My argument was the same one Iâve been making for years: given the known laws of physics â in particular, general relativity (Einsteinâs theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics â we have no choice but to conclude that God exists.
I defined âGodâ as the âuncaused first cause,â which is the definition used by St. Thomas Aquinas in his âsecond wayâ (Aquinasâ second of five proofs of Godâs existence). Aquinas took his proof from Moses Maimonides, who in turn took it from the Kalam Muslim theologians. That is, these leading theologians of the three leading monotheist religions all defined âGodâ the same way, so I thought this would be an acceptable definition. Knowing what is meant by the word âGod,â we can now use physics to see if there is indeed âGodâ out there.
There is. The laws of physics tell us that the universe began about 14 billion years ago at the initial (or big bang) singularity. What is this âsingularityâ? Looking at its properties, one sees that it is the uncaused first cause. Something that is the cause of all causes, but Himself without a cause. Given the laws of physics, the existence of the initial singularity follows necessarily from the mathematics. Now of course we cannot be certain that the laws of physics are correct. We learn about nature via experiment, and new experiments may tell us tomorrow that general relativity and quantum mechanics are just limits of more fundamental laws, which do not possess an initial singularity.
I doubt this, since general relativity and quantum mechanics can themselves be shown mathematically to be special cases of the classical mechanics as developed in the nineteenth century. So there is no evidence, experimental or theoretical, that there are any laws of physics more fundamental than general relativity or quantum mechanics. But I canât rule it out. In science we can only say that the truth of these two theories is highly probable, not certain.
But given these laws of physics, the singularity is certain. It is certain because His existence follows of necessity, from the mathematical analysis of the equations of relativity and quantum mechanics. Given the laws of physics, the existence of the singularity is as certain as 2 + 2 = 4.
I made this point on the panel. No one challenged the laws. No one challenged my calculations. What they challenged was my statement that 2 + 2 = 4!
I was told that 2 + 2 = 4 is merely a matter of opinion. I was told that Gödel showed mathematics could be inconsistent, so anything goes. (Actually, 2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem of Presburger arithmetic, which is arithmetic with addition and subtraction only, and Presburger arithmetic is, and has been proven to be, decidable, complete, and consistent.)
Iâve had this experience several times now. University faculties now teach that truth is whatever the consensus of the faculty says it is (this was made explicit is the Berkeley faculty handbook a few years ago). This idea that the ruling group of faculty can establish truth by authority, even over the truths of mathematics like 2 + 2 = 4, has a chilling Orwellian flavor.
Literally.
George Orwellâs classic 1984 ends with the hero Winston, who believes that truth is something external to mankind and unalterable by any human agency, being tortured by OâBrien, the head of the ruling partyâs secret police. In Orwellâs own words:
OâBrien held up his left hand, its back toward Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
âHow many fingers am I holding up, Winston.â
âFour.â
âAnd if the Party says it is not four but five â then how many?â
âFour.â
The word ended in a gasp of pain [as OâBrien sent a strong electric current through Winston]. â¦
âHow many fingers, Winston?â
âFour.â [Again OâBrien applied the current] â¦
âYou are a slow learner, Winston,â said OâBrien gently.
âHow can I help it?â he blubbered. âHow can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.â
âSometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once.â
The Party â the political class of the world â does not want God to exist. Therefore, if the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics say He does, then the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics must be changed to whatever the Party wants.
Therefore, God does not exist. He must not be mentioned, must not be prayed to in class.
The Party wants the Earth to be warming, so that its members can establish their power over every aspect of our lives. The Earth has not warmed in a decade, in fact it has gotten colder. But the Party says warmer, and further, says that the warming is due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
For years, as we have learned from Climategate, climate âscientistsâ have been fudging the data to obtain the result wanted by the Party. Today, following the decree of the Party, the EPA announces that the Earth is indeed getting warmer, and that indeed, CO2 is responsible for the warming.
God help us.
----------------------------------------
December 10, 2009-
Last week I was on a university panel formed to debate the issue of science and religion. My argument was the same one Iâve been making for years: given the known laws of physics â in particular, general relativity (Einsteinâs theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics â we have no choice but to conclude that God exists.
I defined âGodâ as the âuncaused first cause,â which is the definition used by St. Thomas Aquinas in his âsecond wayâ (Aquinasâ second of five proofs of Godâs existence). Aquinas took his proof from Moses Maimonides, who in turn took it from the Kalam Muslim theologians. That is, these leading theologians of the three leading monotheist religions all defined âGodâ the same way, so I thought this would be an acceptable definition. Knowing what is meant by the word âGod,â we can now use physics to see if there is indeed âGodâ out there.
There is. The laws of physics tell us that the universe began about 14 billion years ago at the initial (or big bang) singularity. What is this âsingularityâ? Looking at its properties, one sees that it is the uncaused first cause. Something that is the cause of all causes, but Himself without a cause. Given the laws of physics, the existence of the initial singularity follows necessarily from the mathematics. Now of course we cannot be certain that the laws of physics are correct. We learn about nature via experiment, and new experiments may tell us tomorrow that general relativity and quantum mechanics are just limits of more fundamental laws, which do not possess an initial singularity.
I doubt this, since general relativity and quantum mechanics can themselves be shown mathematically to be special cases of the classical mechanics as developed in the nineteenth century. So there is no evidence, experimental or theoretical, that there are any laws of physics more fundamental than general relativity or quantum mechanics. But I canât rule it out. In science we can only say that the truth of these two theories is highly probable, not certain.
But given these laws of physics, the singularity is certain. It is certain because His existence follows of necessity, from the mathematical analysis of the equations of relativity and quantum mechanics. Given the laws of physics, the existence of the singularity is as certain as 2 + 2 = 4.
I made this point on the panel. No one challenged the laws. No one challenged my calculations. What they challenged was my statement that 2 + 2 = 4!
I was told that 2 + 2 = 4 is merely a matter of opinion. I was told that Gödel showed mathematics could be inconsistent, so anything goes. (Actually, 2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem of Presburger arithmetic, which is arithmetic with addition and subtraction only, and Presburger arithmetic is, and has been proven to be, decidable, complete, and consistent.)
Iâve had this experience several times now. University faculties now teach that truth is whatever the consensus of the faculty says it is (this was made explicit is the Berkeley faculty handbook a few years ago). This idea that the ruling group of faculty can establish truth by authority, even over the truths of mathematics like 2 + 2 = 4, has a chilling Orwellian flavor.
Literally.
George Orwellâs classic 1984 ends with the hero Winston, who believes that truth is something external to mankind and unalterable by any human agency, being tortured by OâBrien, the head of the ruling partyâs secret police. In Orwellâs own words:
OâBrien held up his left hand, its back toward Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
âHow many fingers am I holding up, Winston.â
âFour.â
âAnd if the Party says it is not four but five â then how many?â
âFour.â
The word ended in a gasp of pain [as OâBrien sent a strong electric current through Winston]. â¦
âHow many fingers, Winston?â
âFour.â [Again OâBrien applied the current] â¦
âYou are a slow learner, Winston,â said OâBrien gently.
âHow can I help it?â he blubbered. âHow can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.â
âSometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once.â
The Party â the political class of the world â does not want God to exist. Therefore, if the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics say He does, then the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics must be changed to whatever the Party wants.
Therefore, God does not exist. He must not be mentioned, must not be prayed to in class.
The Party wants the Earth to be warming, so that its members can establish their power over every aspect of our lives. The Earth has not warmed in a decade, in fact it has gotten colder. But the Party says warmer, and further, says that the warming is due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
For years, as we have learned from Climategate, climate âscientistsâ have been fudging the data to obtain the result wanted by the Party. Today, following the decree of the Party, the EPA announces that the Earth is indeed getting warmer, and that indeed, CO2 is responsible for the warming.
God help us.
Quote from fhl:
from a writer at pajamasmedia.com:
----------------------------------------
December 10, 2009-
Last week I was ...
Lol, all that to conclude with... a denial of global warming and putting the blame on a scientists taking over the world conspiracy. Unemployed?
Here's another conspiracy: the deniers are the public face of big utilities, which fear a squeeze on profits if they have to control their CO2 exhaust.
Quote from fhl:
from a writer at pajamasmedia.com:
----------------------------------------
December 10, 2009-
Last week I was on a university panel formed to debate the issue of science and religion. My argument was the same one Iâve been making for years: given the known laws of physics â in particular, general relativity (Einsteinâs theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics â we have no choice but to conclude that God exists.
I defined âGodâ as the âuncaused first cause,â which is the definition used by St. Thomas Aquinas in his âsecond wayâ (Aquinasâ second of five proofs of Godâs existence). Aquinas took his proof from Moses Maimonides, who in turn took it from the Kalam Muslim theologians. That is, these leading theologians of the three leading monotheist religions all defined âGodâ the same way, so I thought this would be an acceptable definition. Knowing what is meant by the word âGod,â we can now use physics to see if there is indeed âGodâ out there.
There is. The laws of physics tell us that the universe began about 14 billion years ago at the initial (or big bang) singularity. What is this âsingularityâ? Looking at its properties, one sees that it is the uncaused first cause. Something that is the cause of all causes, but Himself without a cause. Given the laws of physics, the existence of the initial singularity follows necessarily from the mathematics. Now of course we cannot be certain that the laws of physics are correct. We learn about nature via experiment, and new experiments may tell us tomorrow that general relativity and quantum mechanics are just limits of more fundamental laws, which do not possess an initial singularity.
I doubt this, since general relativity and quantum mechanics can themselves be shown mathematically to be special cases of the classical mechanics as developed in the nineteenth century. So there is no evidence, experimental or theoretical, that there are any laws of physics more fundamental than general relativity or quantum mechanics. But I canât rule it out. In science we can only say that the truth of these two theories is highly probable, not certain.
But given these laws of physics, the singularity is certain. It is certain because His existence follows of necessity, from the mathematical analysis of the equations of relativity and quantum mechanics. Given the laws of physics, the existence of the singularity is as certain as 2 + 2 = 4.
I made this point on the panel. No one challenged the laws. No one challenged my calculations. What they challenged was my statement that 2 + 2 = 4!
I was told that 2 + 2 = 4 is merely a matter of opinion. I was told that Gödel showed mathematics could be inconsistent, so anything goes. (Actually, 2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem of Presburger arithmetic, which is arithmetic with addition and subtraction only, and Presburger arithmetic is, and has been proven to be, decidable, complete, and consistent.)
Iâve had this experience several times now. University faculties now teach that truth is whatever the consensus of the faculty says it is (this was made explicit is the Berkeley faculty handbook a few years ago). This idea that the ruling group of faculty can establish truth by authority, even over the truths of mathematics like 2 + 2 = 4, has a chilling Orwellian flavor.
Literally.
George Orwellâs classic 1984 ends with the hero Winston, who believes that truth is something external to mankind and unalterable by any human agency, being tortured by OâBrien, the head of the ruling partyâs secret police. In Orwellâs own words:
OâBrien held up his left hand, its back toward Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
âHow many fingers am I holding up, Winston.â
âFour.â
âAnd if the Party says it is not four but five â then how many?â
âFour.â
The word ended in a gasp of pain [as OâBrien sent a strong electric current through Winston]. â¦
âHow many fingers, Winston?â
âFour.â [Again OâBrien applied the current] â¦
âYou are a slow learner, Winston,â said OâBrien gently.
âHow can I help it?â he blubbered. âHow can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.â
âSometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once.â
The Party â the political class of the world â does not want God to exist. Therefore, if the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics say He does, then the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics must be changed to whatever the Party wants.
Therefore, God does not exist. He must not be mentioned, must not be prayed to in class.
The Party wants the Earth to be warming, so that its members can establish their power over every aspect of our lives. The Earth has not warmed in a decade, in fact it has gotten colder. But the Party says warmer, and further, says that the warming is due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
For years, as we have learned from Climategate, climate âscientistsâ have been fudging the data to obtain the result wanted by the Party. Today, following the decree of the Party, the EPA announces that the Earth is indeed getting warmer, and that indeed, CO2 is responsible for the warming.
God help us.
there is progress. when i started debating religion years ago i spent most of my time showing believers the evidence that proved that the bible stories of a global flood and a talking snake and people raising from the dead and virgin birth were nothing but myths. i got a lot of resistance from people who insisted that everything in the bible was fact.
fast forward to today. i dont really run across that many inerrant bible believers anymore. that position has been rendered intellectually indefensable by science. now we have the god is before time first cause cause crowd digging in their heels because they have as believers retreated to the point where there is no where else left to put their god. there are not many gaps left in our knowledge. while it may not seem like it at times i do believe education is winning out over the forces of superstition.
You must have been arguing with born agains. I remember them approaching me and insisting Jesus had brothers because it said brothers in an english translation. I was wondering once someone says tranlation how they can be so sure about the translation it could be perfect - but that has never really been answered to my satisfaction.
I do not think you could argue for inerrancy until you found the core original inspired language.
But vhehn you just read that Aquinas (one of the big two in Catholic theology) argued first cause 800 years ago. I have made that arguement here with you for years. Its not new.
I do not think you could argue for inerrancy until you found the core original inspired language.
But vhehn you just read that Aquinas (one of the big two in Catholic theology) argued first cause 800 years ago. I have made that arguement here with you for years. Its not new.
The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels ifQuote from jem:
You must have been arguing with born agains. I remember them approaching me and insisting Jesus had brothers because it said brothers in an english translation. I was wondering once someone says tranlation how they can be so sure about the translation it could be perfect - but that has never really been answered to my satisfaction.
I do not think you could argue for inerrancy until you found the core original inspired language.
But vhehn you just read that Aquinas (one of the big two in Catholic theology) argued first cause 800 years ago. I have made that arguement here with you for years. Its not new.
any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents
as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."St. Thomas Aquinas:
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
[St. Augustine],
excellent quote -
odd that aquinas was right all those years when he and others were arguing Creator and the triune nature of God and then physics learns of the dual or perhaps triune nature of light (and jesus is called the light very clearly by the gopel of john) and the big bang which the bible would call creation.
And now we have cosmologists, nobel prize winners and biologists questioning whether we had enough time or enough of a chance to be here randomly.
It was quite scornful - until science caught up
odd that aquinas was right all those years when he and others were arguing Creator and the triune nature of God and then physics learns of the dual or perhaps triune nature of light (and jesus is called the light very clearly by the gopel of john) and the big bang which the bible would call creation.
And now we have cosmologists, nobel prize winners and biologists questioning whether we had enough time or enough of a chance to be here randomly.
It was quite scornful - until science caught up
Quote from cashcow:
Realistically the only plausable God is one which set the universe in motion with a set of predetermined rules. That is not to say that is what happened, just the only plasable theological viewpoint.
As an arm-chair student of theology, I can assure you that your above referenced statement is uninformed.
I would be more than happy to recommend some books that may help you to understand some of the subjects you clearly know nothing about.
Ditto
Quote from jem:
excellent quote -
odd that aquinas was right all those years when he and others were arguing Creator and the triune nature of God and then physics learns of the dual or perhaps triune nature of light (and jesus is called the light very clearly by the gopel of john) and the big bang which the bible would call creation.
And now we have cosmologists, nobel prize winners and biologists questioning whether we had enough time or enough of a chance to be here randomly.
It was quite scornful - until science caught up
that is funny if it were not so sad. the lengths supposedly educated men will go to pass of their superstitions as science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SblyuFUM9Q
"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against
christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of
thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which
follows from the advance of science." [Darwin]