Evidence of God: Physics

reply to post by MrXYZ


If you have evidence supporting your claim, that is not GOD of GAPS, that makes it a theory.

I don't think you even know how to use the GOD of GAPS statement properly, which you obviously borrowed from others and is mis-using lol..

It will loose its effect if you mis-use it

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

If you have evidence supporting your claim, that is not GOD of GAPS, that makes it a theory.

I don't think you even know how to use the GOD of GAPS statement properly, which you obviously borrowed from others and is mis-using lol..

It will loose its effect if you mis-use it

Exactly! So kindly provide your evidence that supports the claim that god is responsible for the physics laws/forces. If you can't, you have to admit you don't know if something created it or not, which means you're filling a GAP IN KNOWLEDGE with your "god hypothesis". I'm saying hypothesis because until you provide scientific evidence that a creator is responsible for the physics forces it isn't even a theory

So far all we have is your OPINION that god is the only explanation. You haven't provided anything that could be considered evidence. No evidence => God of the gaps

so i guess,

even if we figured it all out,

which we are way far from doing, we would find NO evidence of a GOD?

would you believe some alien that says they did it all?

and how would you explain the very exsistance of the whole cosmos?

chicken/egg.

unfortunately we will be ignorant for a loooooooooooooooong time.

reply to post by MrXYZ


"1. We have laws which have intelligent origins (communication protocols etc).
2. We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).
3. We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence. "

Since there is no instance of laws coming to existence without intelligence, and thousands of instances of laws coming to existence through intelligence, we come to one conclusive conclusion, an intelligent creator.

If you change the above sentence:

Since there is no instance of laws coming to existence without intelligence, and thousands of instances of laws coming to existence through intelligence, we come to one conclusive conclusion, no intelligent creator.

If you claim there is no intelligent creator behind the creation of such laws, you are using the GAP argument, because you will be using number 2 as your evidence to support your claim that an intelligence wasn't behind the creation of such laws, because we don't know what was (the trap of the GAP).

Get it?

reply to post by oozyism

Since there is no instance of laws coming to existence without intelligence...

Well then, how about you start showing me evidence that the following laws came from intelligent design:

Newton's law of motion
Gravity
Conservation of mass/energy
Thermodynamics

Or any law from this list.

I claim you can't, and your entire hypothesis that no laws come into existence without a creator is therefore complete hogwash.

Also, note that I never made a claim about how those laws came into existence. I'm saying "WE DON'T KNOW" because we have no evidence that would allow us to make a claim about the whole thing. You on the other hand make claims about it without proper evidence, ergo, your hypothesis is a typical case of god of the gaps.

The phrase God of the gaps refers to a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge.

Source

reply to post by MrXYZ

You use the GAP argument to prove the non-existence of an intelligent creator, while I use known knowledge, things that we do know, things that are not unknown.

You use number 2 (the unknown), I use number 1 and 3, the known, facts.

Those laws which you posted are all in the 2 category, which is the unknown.

"1. We have laws which have intelligent origins (communication protocols etc).
2. We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).
3. We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence. "

reply to post by oozyism


First of all, I never made any claims regarding a creator or how those laws came into existence. I said WE DON'T KNOW! Ergo, we have a lack of scientific knowledge regarding the subject.

Secondly, you keep on claiming no laws came into existence without intelligence like a parrot...but you totally ignored the whole list of laws I posted. You haven't provided a single piece of evidence that would support your hypothesis in even a single case of those laws.

I'll switch it around: Name just one scientific law that came into existence only because of a creator, and provide evidence of that. Just one...humour us! We're talking about scientific laws, not "legal" laws or economic laws here. It's obvious that laws we created have a creator. All it means is that we can create things, like a bird can build a nest...not proof of god

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by oozyism

 

First of all, I never made any claims regarding a creator or how those laws came into existence. I said WE DON'T KNOW! Ergo, we have a lack of scientific knowledge regarding the subject.

I claim you can't, and your entire hypothesis that no laws come into existence without a creator is therefore complete hogwash.

Secondly, you keep on claiming no laws came into existence without intelligence like a parrot...but you totally ignored the whole list of laws I posted. You haven't provided a single piece of evidence that would support your hypothesis in even a single case of those laws.

Those laws which you posted are all in the 2 category, which is the unknown.

"1. We have laws which have intelligent origins (communication protocols etc).
2. We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).
3. We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence. "

I'll switch it around: Name just one scientific law that came into existence only because of a creator, and provide evidence of that. Just one...humour us! We're talking about scientific laws, not "legal" laws or economic laws here. It's obvious that laws we created have a creator. All it means is that we can create things, like a bird can build a nest...not proof of god

edit on 21-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

"1. We have laws which have intelligent origins (communication protocols etc).
2. We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).
3. We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence. "

reply to post by oozyism


1) They aren't finely tuned. They are the way they are and that's all we know. Until we find life on another planet it actually looks like the Universe is fine tuned to almost never produce life except under rare conditions.

2) We've had the discussion about the word laws in another thread. Please remember that they are laws in name only and are not analogous to human made laws.

3) I don't know why the Universe exists or why life exists. Those saying that God dun it are the only ones arrogant enough to claim they have the answer to that question. Even science can only tell us HOW the Universe got the way it is and HOW it formed initially. You can use God to fill in the gaps if you want but don't pretend that the existence of the gaps in our knowledge PROVE God (as the OP title suggests).

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by oozyism

 

First of all, I never made any claims regarding a creator or how those laws came into existence. I said WE DON'T KNOW! Ergo, we have a lack of scientific knowledge regarding the subject.

I claim you can't, and your entire hypothesis that no laws come into existence without a creator is therefore complete hogwash.

Secondly, you keep on claiming no laws came into existence without intelligence like a parrot...but you totally ignored the whole list of laws I posted. You haven't provided a single piece of evidence that would support your hypothesis in even a single case of those laws.

Those laws which you posted are all in the 2 category, which is the unknown.

"1. We have laws which have intelligent origins (communication protocols etc).
2. We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).
3. We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence. "

I'll switch it around: Name just one scientific law that came into existence only because of a creator, and provide evidence of that. Just one...humour us! We're talking about scientific laws, not "legal" laws or economic laws here. It's obvious that laws we created have a creator. All it means is that we can create things, like a bird can build a nest...not proof of god

edit on 21-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

"1. We have laws which have intelligent origins (communication protocols etc).
2. We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).
3. We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence. "

Again:

1) I didn't say there is no creator, I said you can't prove his/her/its existence. Your entire hypothesis is based on the assertion that the physical laws are based on a creator...you provide ZERO evidence for that. It's therefore completely rational for me to say you can't prove anything (contrary to what your thread title states).

2) I'm not sure why you keep on listing your little 3 point list without ever showing any evidence that no laws can come into existence without a creator. Points 1 and 2 are obvious, we have man-made laws, and natural laws...point 3 doesn't exist because can't prove it right/wrong. You take it even further by claiming the existence of a creator without providing any evidence.

Seriously, if you want this discussion to go on, you have to show evidence for the very premise of your statements. If you can't show that no laws come into existence without a creator, by showing that the law of gravity/thermodynamics/motion/ect are based on a creator, your entire thread is just pure speculation. Your thread title "Evidence of god: physics" is therefore VERY misleading as you don't seem to wanna provide any evidence.

One last time just to make it very clear: Don't bother posting your little 3 point list again because point 3 is total hogwash until you can show evidence to support that hypothesis.

In order for your thread to not be 100% speculation and scientifically worthless, you have to:

Provide scientific evidence (NOT philosophical) that the laws of motion/thermodynamics/gravity and all the other physical laws are only existing because of a creator.

If you're unclear regarding what "evidence", "proof", "hypothesis", and "theory" means in science, check out this link about scientific method.

I mean, just look at what you're saying:

1) We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).

So you admit we don't know what caused the natural laws like gravity. At least in this sentence, your thread title states otherwise...namely that you still attribute it to a deity. If it's unknown, and you still claim it's all because of a deity, guess what...you are FILLING A GAP IN KNOWLEDGE with god...aka god of the gaps.

2) We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence.

So first you state there's laws of unknown origins where we don't know what caused them. And in the very next point you claim that no laws came into existence without intelligence...completely contradicting your first statement.

I really hope you see how illogical you are.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


I use what I know as evidence for GOD, not what I don't know

Second line.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Go find out what evidence means.

We had that discussion before also.

reply to post by oozyism


Than kindly explain how what we know about the Universe proves God and why it has eluded minds more brilliant than yours or mine. To reiterate a point from my first response, if what we know about physics proves God why did Stephen Hawking co-author a book which stated the Universe doesn't need a God?

reply to post by oozyism


I don't think I'm the one who needs to look up "evidence" to see how illogical your arguments are

I mean, just look at what you're saying:

1) We have laws which have unknown origins (natural laws).

So you admit we don't know what caused the natural laws like gravity. At least in this sentence, your thread title states otherwise...namely that you still attribute it to a deity. If it's unknown, and you still claim it's all because of a deity, guess what...you are FILLING A GAP IN KNOWLEDGE with god...aka god of the gaps.

2) We have absolutely no laws which have come to existence without intelligence.

So first you state there's laws of unknown origins where we don't know what caused them. And in the very next point you claim that no laws came into existence without intelligence...completely contradicting your first statement.

I really hope you see how illogical you are. I mean, you're contradicting yourself completely!

Your entire thread including the title is nothing but you CLAIMING god exists...but you fail miserably at providing anything even remotely resembling proof.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by oozyism

 

Than kindly explain how what we know about the Universe proves God and why it has eluded minds more brilliant than yours or mine. To reiterate a point from my first response, if what we know about physics proves God why did Stephen Hawking co-author a book which stated the Universe doesn't need a God?

edit on 21-11-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

Many other minds who created the basis of science, who gave Stephen Hawking the ground works believed in GOD.

Than kindly explain how what we know about the Universe proves God

Already explained previously, the fact that there is absolutely no instance of laws coming to existence without intelligence and thousands of instances of laws coming to existence through intelligence.

It leads us to one conclusion. That is if you want to believe it, DUUUUHH.. They say to some no amount of evidence is sufficient, if they don't want to believe. For others, no evidence is needed.

Let me find that quote, uhh, here it is:

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not, none will suffice. "

[Joseph Dunninger]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by oozyism

 

If what we know about physics proves God why did Stephen Hawking co-author a book which stated the Universe doesn't need a God?

edit on 21-11-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

Because Stephen Hawking obviously has no clue about physics.

Either that, or Hawking is part of a secret cabal that includes ALL scientists. Their goal is to make people disbelieve in god and use their brains. Of course that will have horrible consequences and it's totally clear how that would harm us. I mean, think about it...humans actually using their brains and using logic and rationality...no, wait...don't do it, don't think about it!! Don't let those evil scientists scramble your brain with their evil "elitist" theories and atheist mind games. Fight!

reply to post by MrXYZ




The arguments the OP is making are self-refuting and fallacious. Particularly bothersome to me is trying to conflate manmade laws with natural ones. A natural law merely describes the way that nature behaves, that's all it is, we humans are the reason it is called a law and had we decided to call it something else the OP wouldn't be able to make such a weak argument to begin with

Originally posted by oozyism
the fact that there is absolutely no instance of laws coming to existence without intelligence

And you're doing it again like a parrot. You can't make a claim like this without providing any evidence!!

Prove that gravity/thermodynamics/motion/etc all came into existence through a creator. Until then, stop repeating that complete nonsense like a parrot.

reply to post by oozyism

Many other minds who created the basis of science, who gave Stephen Hawking the ground works believed in GOD.

I'm well aware of that, but did they come out with books or peer reviewed research about how physics proves God's existence? Hawking is saying that what we know about physics shows that we don't need God to create the Universe and while I don't think its possible to disprove God I do think its possible to show that one isn't needed. There are plenty of theist scientists and if Physics proved God it would be on the headlines of every newspaper. I certainly wouldn't be an atheist if physics proved God.

the fact that there is absolutely no instance of laws coming to existence without intelligence and thousands of instances of laws coming to existence through intelligence.

I already defeated this in a previous thread. Natural laws are laws in name only (law is just the word that was used). There is no correlation between natural laws and manmade laws and a natural law merely describes how nature behaves. Your argument is bunk.

Seems to me like this is excellent evidence for a creator, the scientific community has in my opinion in recent years been moving towards proof of god ! I have over the years read theories that sound like the vedas and various other hindu religious beliefs. Personally i have always believed in a creator, i have always found it absurd that people believe everything happened by chance ! It's a copout, the evidence is stacking up more and more. Im delighted that science is finding this out. Atheists used to say there is no god ! that scientific proof is against it, now that more and more scientists are leaning towards god they just say that the scientists are wrong!!! You cant have it both ways! What maybe annoys these people is that they see corrupt religions on earth and somehow blame god, well the religions are a construct of human minds and emotions. The fact is some of them couldnt be further away from the truth (god). Also i say to people who say god doesnt exist...where is your proof ? Just by your very existence you are living proof ! You are trying to deny yourself.