Science finds more evidence of God's Creation

The Bible says:

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Science has this unwritten rule. Everything in the universe and the nature of reality must be reduced to it's material parts. Full Stop.

It's an illogical fantasy that has no basis in reality. It's something that's born out of atheism. So it's a way of looking at science, which is supposed to be objective, with a priori that everything must be reduced to materialism to avoid God.

It's the only way you can explain why people who seem to be intelligent accept something like a natural interpretation of evolution which is obviously false. It takes HUGE pride to conclude there's no God and we're the highest form of intelligence in all existence and we're a type 0 civilization that hasn't visited our own moon in 53 years.

I wrote about this in this thread called:

The Bible predicts what science discovers
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's plenty of examples but here's another one:

A Deepening Crisis Forces Physicists to Rethink Structure of Nature’s Laws

The crisis became undeniable in 2016, when, despite a major upgrade, the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva still hadn’t conjured up any of the new elementary particles that theorists had been expecting for decades. The swarm of additional particles would have solved a major puzzle about an already known one, the famed Higgs boson. The hierarchy problem, as the puzzle is called, asks why the Higgs boson is so lightweight — a hundred million billion times less massive than the highest energy scales that exist in nature. The Higgs mass seems unnaturally dialed down relative to these higher energies, as if huge numbers in the underlying equation that determines its value all miraculously cancel out.

link to article

Now, a person who reads this and who uses common sense, logic and reason instead of the unwritten rule of materialism, will conclude this is clearly Intelligent Design.

Again, you have to couple this with all of the other evidence and I will link some of my threads at the end of this post that talk about this. It would take 100 pages for me to list it all again.

What the article is saying is that they didn't find what's called naturalness. They never do, but this is yet another case.

The extra particles would have explained the tiny Higgs mass, restoring what physicists call “naturalness” to their equations. But after the LHC became the third and biggest collider to search in vain for them, it seemed that the very logic about what’s natural in nature might be wrong. “We are confronted with the need to reconsider the guiding principles that have been used for decades to address the most fundamental questions about the physical world,” Gian Giudice, head of the theory division at CERN, the lab that houses the LHC, wrote in 2017.

At first, the community despaired. “You could feel the pessimism,” said Isabel Garcia Garcia, a particle theorist at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who was a graduate student at the time. Not only had the $10 billion proton smasher failed to answer a 40-year-old question, but the very beliefs and strategies that had long guided particle physics could no longer be trusted. People wondered more loudly than before whether the universe is simply unnatural, the product of fine-tuned mathematical cancellations. Perhaps there’s a multiverse of universes, all with randomly dialed Higgs masses and other parameters, and we find ourselves here only because our universe’s peculiar properties foster the formation of atoms, stars and planets and therefore life. This “anthropic argument,” though possibly right, is frustratingly untestable.

link to article

Again, the illogical unwritten rule of materialism comes into play.

Instead of accept God Created the universe, they appeal to the untestable multiverse. A multiverse with a physical wave function makes no sense. A recent paper talked about the wave function as non physical:

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

arxiv.org...

Subsequent experiments confirmed this and I talk about it in these threads:

Can a materialist provide scientific evidence that the material world has an objective existence?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's ILLOGICAL to think God didn't Create the Universe
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We know that intelligence cancels things out to fine tune a design. We can see this with a block of wood.

We can take a block of wood and cancel out a lot of the wood as we fine tune it to specific values and after we're done, that piece of wood is now a beautiful table. Here's a video of a guy that takes a block of wood and makes a beautiful vase.



This is how we build tables, chairs, houses, TV's and more. We're made in the image and likeness of God. The breathe of life allows us to build and create the civilization we live in. God Creates and fine tunes the intitial conditions and the the constants of nature and Creates the universe.

There's evidence of this everywhere we look. When science comes face to face with this evidence they appeal to the illogical like a multiverse with a physical wave function.

Think about what this means. It means you don't make any choices. Everything you do is determined a gazillion versions of you in other universes. So when I woke up this morning and ate cereal, it only feels like I made the choice to eat cereal. CONT'D

The act of eating cereal occurred because there's a gazillion different versions of me where I eat everything in my fridge for breakfast. So there's a version of me that eats pancakes & eggs, another version that eats french toast and another version where I eat oatmeal. There also has to be universes where I order door dash, uber eats and postmates and there has to be a gazillion versions of me that order from every restaurant that serves breakfast on these platforms.

This isn't just for me but it has to be the same for billions of other people on the planet.

They go to these illogical lengths to support the unwritten rule of materialism and to deny God. Here's more:

Some of those who remained set to work scrutinizing decades-old assumptions. They started thinking anew about the striking features of nature that seem unnaturally fine-tuned — both the Higgs boson’s small mass, and a seemingly unrelated case, one that concerns the unnaturally low energy of space itself. “The really fundamental problems are problems of naturalness,” Garcia Garcia said.

Their introspection is bearing fruit. Researchers are increasingly zeroing in on what they see as a weakness in the conventional reasoning about naturalness. It rests on a seemingly benign assumption, one that has been baked into scientific outlooks since ancient Greece: Big stuff consists of smaller, more fundamental stuff — an idea known as reductionism. “The reductionist paradigm … is hard-wired into the naturalness problems,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.

Now a growing number of particle physicists think naturalness problems and the null results at the Large Hadron Collider might be tied to reductionism’s breakdown. “Could it be that this changes the rules of the game?” Arkani-Hamed said. In a slew of recent papers, researchers have thrown reductionism to the wind. They’re exploring novel ways in which big and small distance scales might conspire, producing values of parameters that look unnaturally fine-tuned from a reductionist perspective.

link to article

Well you don't say!

Christians have been saying this for years in debates. They have been saying reductionism makes no sense. You don't need reductionism when it's God that Created the universe. These things are not reduced naturally but fined tuned by intelligence.

Let me repeat:

Christians have been saying this for years in debates. They have been saying reductionism makes no sense. You don't need reductionism when it's God that Created the universe. These things are not reduced naturally but fined tuned by intelligence.

Yet again, science confirms what we've been saying over the years.

I'm sure things will not change. They will come up with more convoluted theories to support this illogical unwritten rule of materialism because the point is to deny God. The point is to deny our spiritual nature. This is the pride of humans. This is the tower of babel, mystery babylon and the pope's and imam's human fraternity.

It's the desire of the carnal mind to separete itself from God. Here's a few more threads that talk about some of the evidence.

New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What Makes Us Human? The Answer May Be Found in Overlooked “Junk” DNA
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The most important interview in Science that you probably haven't seen
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why wouldn't the laws of physics come from an intelligent mind?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah, I'm having trouble reconciling pure Darwinism with reality, mostly based on probability and personal experiences with seeming non-material-as-we-know-it intelligence; despite still being quite sure that religions are ...er... uhmmm, howz about "religions are problematic and error filled patchwork methods of crowd control?"

I'm warming to Gnostic ideas about how this food-chained, empty mess of a reality was birthed by an accidental, blind, insane abomination.

I suppose this place being generated by an emo slacker in some futuristic middle-school science class in some primary reality works, too, though it just puts the primary cause question into a holding pattern.

I'm packing my bags for the Pleroma... but probably need a stupid vax passport.

Great thread...

As I like to say, science is a study of God's mind.

Faith in God doesn't require endorsement in God.

You fighting the atheism science boogeyman is akin to what you are trying to demonstrate of the other side.

Atheists believe in God too, they just don't know that they do.

There is no argument necessary to be made.

a reply to: neoholographic

Great thread and article

I agree, the evidence clearly points to an Intelligent Designer.

I can't put my hand on it to give references, but I have a book from the 60's, written by a French geneticist and in the book, he explains the then crisis geneticians were facing; how to talk about genetics without inferring God.

Because, if they can talk about a code, the implications of a coder is splattered everywhere, and they didn't want God in their field.

a reply to: neoholographic

Thanks for taking the time for all the great threads

God exists just not the phony god of all these religions around the globe.

I believe there is a higher power it is responsible for all that exists it also doesn't mettle in the matters of men.

Maybe God is just a little kid running a simulation on his new computer his parents gave him. There is simply no way to know who when what why where or how.

It just is.

thanks for the great reading

I read about half your post and decided to just let you know that the unwritten rule to science as you put it you later called the rule of materialism which is a contradiction you cleverly denote it as a reduction as if you are now applying a likewise manner to language with decorations it's like science in the fact that the true nature of science in it's purpose is to find an answer to a question or explanation in meaning to a fact and is why it is called science and not fact, or, at least as close as can be got to the same and we can all get away with the oops and mistakes.

The problem with science today is similar to when it began being anybody with a substantial education and the record to show for it can consider themselves a scientist and that very problem which is a farce as it began has diluted itself down to a mere opinion which holds no ground whatsoever and those are scientists, real scientists and that's a shame because they are good hearted folks whom truly try to make the right decisions and find the right answers and possibilities for one reason only and that is for the good of and boost in perseverance of mankind, not to mention how thrilling it is and then the excitement of it all of course.

It's a shame anybody who thinks they are smart or/and clever thinks they can whore out science by way of dilution while spilling dirty blood on the heads of common everyday folk who simply like to read what is interesting and there was a day when some true good hearted folk and very intelligent scientists with professionalism as practiced by a scientist found the time in their daily work to contribute out of being a devoted citizen of science to those who love science in a way such as Above Top Secret.
These days that has been diluted by nailbiters on a fix who wouldn't dare then until the numbers came like roaches after a nuke attack.
It's heresay though and can only be pondered on in reflection.

I have a question for you, what are you looking for?
Another one, have you ever eaten a freshly made candyfloss from a stick after watching it being made?

And the Bible didn't say that.
a reply to: neoholographic

Easy there hoss she might wait, have another look at a block of wood before you go shaving your life away...
a reply to: neoholographic

The cereal you had for breakfast was science and now you can't even decipher the breakdown of the table you ate it off of unless it was your laptop.
I amn't trying to be a smart ass here but your version of science is similar to a two year old child rollerskating across the kitchen floor eating rice krispies with too much milk.

Reading on.

a reply to: neoholographic

Are you aware of the meaning to materialism? The meaning is, all that matters is that of which is physical meaning it can be touched and seen meaning it visually exists. The belief in materialism isn't wrong but it is misunderstood as being a way of life or even as you seem to think a science when in fact materialism is but a habit in one's mind frame like a curtain on a window and is also used by the way and I mean that in a sympathetic kind of way as an excuse for greed and ignorance not to mention perversion.

The hadron collider was invented by a bunch of mad scientists, mad about science that is with an infusion of another or two or three with their hands on the floor saying those whom chose to take the road of denying God over science will be reduced to a bunch of mad scientists confined to this very contraption walking around in circles until they can fix the problem, while the mad scientists whom are a breed of their own respectively and without doubt respond: With God.

One more to go.

a reply to: neoholographic

I was going to ask you what your point was until you went off into your Hitler meets the Pope rant.

May the road rise up to meet your face Is all I can say to that.
No it isn't offensive it's just something to think about instead of reading. Drink some beers think about the beer. Have sex with your woman or man think about him or her. It isn't science.
Science is for those who genuinely care and most importantly without an agenda as for science there is not enough room for any agenda. Wanting to do the right thing isn't an agenda and neither is having a nice day so have a nice day.

After all a scientist doesn't make a scientist but becomes one, not God. God is the result, not the intellectual whom thinks of itself or entity as God because the answers are known in a scientific way born of an ignorant existence, for those whom believe each step they choose to walk was the right one because of the result are with God, not God. The only thing wrong with a mistake is to think you are right. A scientist doesn't think that way and neither does God. That is the rule, with God, meaning to be awake, for God sleeps, for that is when God is with God.

Over and out, politics is not for politicians, politicians are for banks.
God is for people who don't know the difference and the politician was God.
Reduced to a collection of books, made from trees today and breeding like currency in an imaginary registry of motor vehicles we like to call society.

Appreciate your friends now for you haven't many if you are lucky.
Soldiers are fighting a copycat Vietnam war today even Russia wasn't aware of yet the people of the world react in knowing, why, because later they can say they were right and blame it all on Putin so they can call John F Kennedy Jesus and smile like a scientist saying Eureka or was that God.

a reply to: ONIONBAGMENACE

Uhhhhh wow lots of ramble spamming?

originally posted by: Romeopsi
a reply to: neoholographic

Great thread and article

I agree, the evidence clearly points to an Intelligent Designer.

Thanks and I agree! The evidence is clear.

a reply to: neoholographic
Great thread Neo.
One of the problems we have on here and around the world is that those with the Materialist view believe they are thinking objectively.
They are guilty of doing exactly what they claim others are doing; NOT thinking objectively.
When you start a thought process that leads to experimentation and exclude the possibility of a Creator at the beginning, you are not thinking objectively.
Many on here, who claim to be atheist, fall short of that goal. They actually have more faith in what they believe than many Christians I know.
It is truly amazing to watch/read them rant, rave and accuse others of "not understanding science".
Many of them don't have a clue. They don't understand the philosophy of science and many will tell you outright that there is no such thing.
They don't understand the actual process or what science truly entails.
They have set up a sort of sub par religion.
Peer reviewed data is their bible.
Evolution is their savior, and time is their all powerful god. How many times have we heard "through time, all things are possible".
It is really fascinating to watch/read sometimes.
Quad

a reply to: Quadrivium

Thanks and what you said sums it up perfectly. You said:

One of the problems we have on here and around the world is that those with the Materialist view believe they are thinking objectively.

That's the problem. They don't see the flaw in their logic. They don't see that an unwritten rule that all of the universe and the nature of reality must be reduced to materialism as a priori isn't science. What they're doing is masquerading their belief and calling it science. Tesla even said:

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

That day hasn't happened because of blind, closed minded belief that starts off saying all things must be reduced to their material parts. There's no law that says this is the case but the scientific establishment goes to great lengths to label any research outside of the materialist viewpoint as pseudoscience. It's a belief not science.

a reply to: neoholographic

You're right about science's problem of only studying materialism. It's like ants trying to figure out what a tire on a vehicle is. It would take a long time for them to understand the logical purpose of the object by studying one minute aspect of its physical form at a time, much less how it came into existence and truly why it did.

One could create an inspired work of art, an abstract drawing of various shapes which together suggest an abstract form of the world (the globe.) Just by taking in the sum of its parts you can see what the illustration represents. By taking in its gentle, caring strokes, one perceives the loving intention of presenting the world as something sacred. At first glance we know what it is and why this artwork exists. It's simple and self-evident.

But if one were to study it from a purely surface perspective, analyzing every line and each full object of the picture at a time, one would perceive a wholly different impression of what it is: various parts which each appear as its own thing when united (a glass for an ocean or an ice cube for the south arctic). They would view the overall illustration in terms of its individual parts and what purpose they serve in function contributing to a spherical machine-like body of different parts. A very materialistic view of what it really is.

Not to imply that all scientists are limited to such narrow perceptions, but science itself functions exactly this way. It certainly has validity and makes wonderful (and terrible) discoveries, but science is forever based on a microscopic viewpoint of material reality--the study of trees but never the forest, so to speak.

But this is where philosophy comes in, to observe and discuss the forest (which can irritate those who study trees (but also vice versa.) There clearly is usefulness for each perspective.

It does annoy me when those of this narrow-minded ilk (not always very scientific people) make closed-minded judgements from a position of scientism. Just because modern science cannot see the forest from the trees does not mean the forest doesn't exist. We can perceive the Face of Mars with no need to prove it by scientific means. If a child had drawn that image adults would know straight away that it was a face, no need to ponder. Anyone who didn't know it was a face would need their head examined. For a man/woman of science to chime in with the fact that science has not determined it to be an actual face is a perfectly fair point. But to assert there is no face on Mars is ludicrous because there clearly is, even if it's by natural coincidence. We don't need science to verify what we clearly see to be the truth. Science can be helpful in studying the face, for how it may have taken shape or what what minerals it took shape from. But the forest is clear from the trees.

I see the intelligent design of things, not that I disbelieve in evolution. I find all such ideas interesting. There clearly is design behind life, and I believe in a God/Creator behind it personally. But one could fairly argue the Matrix theory as well, or other possibilities. It's good to stay open minded, to expand one's horizons, and consider the insights of different perspectives.