Evidence of God in physics , MIND BOGGLING

reply to post by Toadmund


The nature of this higher power is so all encompassing, and denies the nature of what we've become so thoroughly, and is just so absolutely simplistic and unexpected (considering what we've convinced ourselves over the years) that we refuse to see it.

I don't completely understand why we insist upon looking everywhere but at the light...perhaps it's because of what we've become. Perhaps it's because we are too frightened to let go of what's familiar. Perhaps it's because we would rather be followers than leaders, and those to whom leading comes naturally have decided to further themselves rather than the world, because of their mortality - and they want to have all the power and influence and change they can before their bodies decay.

Who knows? All I know, is this: all of the hell and the "demons" and the negativity in this world was born of our actions and our reactions. We have done this to ourselves. And we continue trying to fix what we've broken, only to discover as it's being fixed, we're breaking something else. And it continues in a circle. We are NOT the most intelligent species on the planet, because in spite of our potential and our power, we have done the most harm to it.

Saddening, isn't it? I think the crux of it is this: all of nature is in motion. And that's what the nature of the universe is. But we want to stay in place, and we keep inventing more and more ways to stay in place. And we keep doing that, ignoring the damage that's building up as a result of our stagnance, because we have convinced ourselves we need go no further.. And that's where we're wrong.

Acting like we have proof of -ANYTHING- at this stage in our development as a race makes me facepalm.

If an entire beach worth of sand, from the surface of the beach down to where the sand stops, is the total amount of knowledge that could possibly be known in the universe, then our race probably only knows 1 grain of sand worth.

What actually "boggles" my mind is how anyone on this earth can try to pretend that they have proof of a god while taking themselves seriously.

i question there was a big bang , followed by a sequence of accidents, then hey presto.

There was no Big Bang. As much as cosmologists will hate to admit it.

The Case Against Cosmology - M.J. Disney - NED
Modern Cosmology: Science or Folk Tale?

They will soon realize that the past exists only in the present, and the Big Bang is more a narrative built to fit in with our inherent need to explain everything through a human anthropomorphic perspective.

With logical a>b. Cause and effect. Birth and Death. Beginning and end.

Infinity should not scare us anymore. The universe is likely infinite in time and extent.

Why should the dimensions and size be bound by the observable only, and by the speed of light? Our minds can transcend that concept as soon as even been formulated and proven.

Fractal cosmologies and plasma cosmologies are the way to go

Nothing to do with God, though. This is science; evolving as we do.

The Case Against Cosmology

M. J. Disney



It is argued that some of the recent claims for cosmology are grossly over blown. Cosmology rests on a very small database: it suffers frommany fundamental difficulties as a science (if it is a science at all) whilst observations of distant phenomena are difficult to make and harder to interpret. It is suggested that cosmological inferences should be tentatively made and sceptically received



Given statements emanating from some cosmologists today one could be for given for assuming that the solution to some of the great problems of the subject, even“the origin of the Universe” lie just around the corner. As an example of this triumphalist approach consider the following conclusion from Hu et al. [1] to apreview of the results they expect from spacecraft such as MAP and PLANCKdesigned to map the Cosmic Background Radiations: “. . . we will establish thecosmological model as securely as the Standard Model of elementary particles. We will then know as much, or even more, about the early Universe and itscontents as we do about the fundamental constituents of matter”.We believe the most charitable thing that can be said of such statements isthat they are naive in the extreme and betray a complete lack of understandingof history, of the huge difference between an observational and an experimentalscience, and of the peculiar limitations of cosmology as a scientific discipline. By building up expectations that cannot be realised, such statements do a disservicenot only to astronomy and to particle physics but they could ultimately do harmto the wider respect in which the whole scientific approach is held. As such,they must not go unchallenged.

[......]

7 COSMOLOGY IN PERSPECTIVE

Of course we would all love to know of the fate of the Universe, just as we’dlove to know if God exists. If we expect science to provide the answers though,we may have to be very patient - and literally wait for eternity. Alas professional cosmologists cannot afford to wait that long. For that reason the word‘cosmologist’ should be expunged from the scientific dictionary and returned tothe priesthood where it properly belongs.I’m not suggesting that cosmology itself should be abandoned. Mostly byaccident it has made some fascinating, if faltering progress over the centuries.And if we are patient and build our instruments to explore the Universe in allthe crevices of parameter space, new clues will surely come to hand, as theyhave in the past, largely by accident. But we should not spend too many ofour astronomical resources in trying to answer grandiose questions which may,in all probability, be unanswerable. For instance we must not build the NextGeneration Space Telescope as if it was solely a cosmological machine. Weshould only do that if we are confident of converging on “the truth”. If we buildit to look through many windows we may yet find the surprising clues whichlead us off on a new path along the way.Above all we must not overclaim for this fascinating subject which, it canbe argued, is not a proper science at all. Rutherford for instance said “Don’t8let me hear anyone use the word ‘Universe’ in my department”. Shouldn’t wescientists be saying something like this to the general public:

“It is not likely that we primates gazing through bits of glass for a century ortwo will dissemble the architecture and history of infinity. But if we don’t try we won’t get anywhere. Therefore we professionals do the best we can to fit theodd clues we have into some kind of plausible story. That is how science works,and that is the spirit in which our cosmological speculations should be treated.Don’t be impressed by our complex machines or our arcane mathematics. Theyhave been used to build plausible cosmic stories before - which we had to discardafterwards in the face of improving evidence. The likelihood must be that suchrevisions will have to occur again and again and again.”

Originally posted by Qemyst
Acting like we have proof of -ANYTHING- at this stage in our development as a race makes me facepalm.

If an entire beach worth of sand, from the surface of the beach down to where the sand stops, is the total amount of knowledge that could possibly be known in the universe, then our race probably only knows 1 grain of sand worth.

What actually "boggles" my mind is how anyone on this earth can try to pretend that they have proof of a god while taking themselves seriously.

Anyone? You claim to speak for ALL people on Earth? You think no one on Earth can be less ignorant than you about whether God exists? Rather presumptious, don't you think?

Your way of arguing is typical of the modern, arrogant mind-set. It generalizes from its own state of ignorance to the false inference that everyone else is equally as dumbed-down about spiritual matters and that someone is only PRETENDING when he or she claims to have proof of the existence of God. There are people in this world who know far more about the nature of reality than most others, including you, it seems, hard as it is for you to believe that anyone could know more than you. Just because this knowledge is not found in an encyclopaedia does not mean that it does not yet exist.....

I could provide you with hard, mathematical evidence for the existence of transcendental intelligence that is so amazing, so rigorous and wonderful - so boggling to your mind, assuming that you could understand it - that it would make you feel silly that you had presumed to make such a generalization.

Originally posted by micpsi

I could provide you with hard, mathematical evidence for the existence of transcendental intelligence that is so amazing, so rigorous and wonderful - so boggling to your mind, assuming that you could understand it - that it would make you feel silly that you had presumed to make such a generalization.

So, you have proof of god?
Please share!

Convince us, the ball is in your court.

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by Cherry0

 

Ah yes, the old God can be anything I personally want to define it as and I can still say I believe in God with a capital G. Apparently many people forgot that God is a proper noun and has a defined origin. If you want to ponder gods that may or may not be anything at all, that is quite different. But I still do not see how there is any room for a god without an invisible magician.

Because some people seem to be so stuck on the religious dogma version and misinterpretation of it that they can't wrap their mind around it being anything else other than an "invisible magician" as you and many others seem to call it. WHY does "God" have to be an invisible man or old man in the sky? It makes no sense to think this way. But if you decide to think of "God" more as an energy that is everywhere yet unseen due to our limitations, then it may become a little more clear.

Just throw anything religion has taught out the door and rethink this. That's what I had to do a long time ago.

reply to post by Cherry0


If there was a god, that's what it would be.

All pervasive - electricity or gravity

Would Nicola Tesla agree with that?

But then again, would that mean empty space has no god? Unless empty space is not empty as 'some astro out-there theorists propose'.

If I understand the premise of the "proof" offered here it's that the universe is so "finely tuned" that the only explanation is that there is an intelligent designer. However, There are several possible explanations;

1. if we accept the theory that there are an infinite amount of parallel universes, it could be that we just happen to be in one that is "finely tuned"

2. It's also possible that we are living in a "computer simulation" created by a highly advanced entity.

3. We are living in a universe created by an ominpotent being, "God"

Regardless whether or not you accept any of the possible explanations, the point is that there are always alternative possiblities. The logic employed in the OPs proof is somewhat flawed. Also, the scientific community has already debated this topic and has come to the same conclusions above (mine are paraphrased of course) with the first one listed as being the most probable if not the most plausable.

On a personal note; I believe in a divine omnipotent power but I don't pretend to comprehend what that means. I am incapable of comprehending the "thoughts" and "motivations" of such a being. hell, I can't even begin to fully understand and comprehend the physical universe and it's grand scale, let alone the being which created it or the manner in which it was created.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
If I understand the premise of the "proof" offered here it's that the universe is so "finely tuned" that the only explanation is that there is an intelligent designer. However, There are several possible explanations;

The Universe is not finely tuned for us.
Through evolution we are tuned to it, we adapted to our environment.

If the Universe were any different, beings would adapt to that.

The Universe was not designed so that humans may live, the Universe as it is produced us as we are, from our environment to fit our environment.

reply to post by Toadmund

The Universe was not designed so that humans may live, the Universe as it is produced us as we are, from our environment to fit our environment.

The universe was designed for itself. It was designed to EXPERIENCE. When you are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent (not talking dogmatic terms here), what is there left to be? What is there to experience?

THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Weak, ephemeral, singular, and very, very inexperienced. Set up those parameters, make a few billion, and you've got yourself a college course. Rinse and repeat, and you've got yourself a perpetual curriculum designed to mix every set of circumstance, variable, and personality that is universally possible. And hence, every sort of experience that can't depend on godly power.

Originally posted by micpsi
I could provide you with hard, mathematical evidence for the existence of transcendental intelligence that is so amazing, so rigorous and wonderful - so boggling to your mind, assuming that you could understand it - that it would make you feel silly that you had presumed to make such a generalization.

No, I doubt that you could.
And if you think that you can, then please, enlighten us with this hard, mathematical evidence that is so amazing, rigorous and wonderful, and so boggling to our minds.

I bet others here will be anxiously awaiting this revelation.

Originally posted by Toadmund

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
If I understand the premise of the "proof" offered here it's that the universe is so "finely tuned" that the only explanation is that there is an intelligent designer. However, There are several possible explanations;

The Universe is not finely tuned for us.
Through evolution we are tuned to it, we adapted to our environment.

If the Universe were any different, beings would adapt to that.

The Universe was not designed so that humans may live, the Universe as it is produced us as we are, from our environment to fit our environment.

You mis-understand. I didn't mean that the universe is finely tuned for us. It is "finely tuned" so that matter itself can exist.

Here: The Fine Tuned Universe

is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.

Source

You should become familiar with the concept before correcting others thoughts on the matter.

As I stated earlier, this has been discussed ad-nauseum in the scientific communities. It's nothing new and it certainly isn't "proof" of God.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Sorry about that.
I just think that if the Universe were any different, it could be 'fine tuned' in a different way.
I hate using 'fine tuned', like god is operating a radio dial or something.

Nothing is fine tuned, it just turned out the way it is, everything settled into place, and we adapted to our little corner of the Universe, that's it.


IMO

In regards to the finely tuned argument, the great Douglas Adams, in his short life, expressed a tidy analogy refuting it:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

Of course the water fits in the hole; its nature was to fill and expand the exact dimensions of the hole.

In regards to probability, what is important to remember is that however high the probability of something which has not happened may be, the probability of something which has already happened is always 1:1.

None of this refutes the possibility of any gods, but rather these particular arguments in favor thereof. I don't understand why believers attempt to reconcile faith with logic, anyway. Isn't the point of faith to believe in something which is ineffable by definition?

reply to post by sepermeru


I don't think that analogy is even close to being appropriate.

Again, the premise of the "proof of God" concept is this:

Matter itself would not exist if certain universal constants were not precisely what they are. One example is the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. If the charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses were slightly different, atoms would not form. Another example is if the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium; stars would probably not exist as we know them.

There are many other examples of "fine tuning" in the Universe.

In other words, if any of the "finely tuned" constants were slighty different, there would be no puddle, no hole, no ground, and no matter whatsoever.

reply to post by r2d246

Not only is that video posted in violation of the ATS terms and conditions, since you didn't provide a description and state how it's relevant, but it's also free of science as the youtube comment points out:

Lots of hand-waving, zero science and of course the classic -- there is one data point in the sample (our Universe) and that point wouldn't exist in its present shape unless it existed in its present shape.

Life could exist just fine if gravity was much stronger or weaker than it is...he's just making stuff up by claiming otherwise. The lifeforms on a given planet might be different, but they could still exist. For example if gravity was twice as strong then life forms on a given planet might need to be shorter and stockier to compensate.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


It's not the strength of gravity that defines the finely tuned universe, it's the force of gravity. You apparently don't understand the concept either. Everyone knows that an object with greater mass exerts more graviational pull but that's not what they're talking about. What they are talking about is the ratio of gravitational force per mass unit.

And beyond that there are sevral other "constants" that are cited in the "finely tuned universe" theory:

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants:

N = ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
Epsilon (ε) = strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
Omega (ω) = relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
Lambda (λ) = cosmological constant;
Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime.

Damn... at least scan the Wiki page to get an idea of what you're talking about...

Source

Originally posted by dwarfflex
Evidence of God in Physics , mind boggling.

www.youtube.com...
So much intelligent design, i question there was a big bang , followed by a sequence of accidents, then hey presto.

here we are.

Mod Note:

15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on the Websites or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread.

As you can see, staff frowns on minimum posts with no textual content, and some of us simply ignore them altogether. If you want to be heard, and read, then speak. Youtube is not your spokesperson.

reply to post by Blarneystoner

Thanks for the link which confirms it's garbage:

The validity of fine tuning examples is sometimes questioned on the grounds that such reasoning is subjective anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants. Critics also suggest that the fine-tuned Universe assertion and the anthropic principle are essentially tautologies... In addition, critics argue that humans are adapted to the Universe through the process of evolution, rather than the Universe being adapted to humans (see puddle thinking). They also see it as an example of the logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the Universe.

Yes I'm a critic and yes life evolved to adapt to the universe as it is. Had the universe been different, life would have evolved differently.

And I objected to the claims about gravity in particular and found no support at that link in support of the ridiculous gravity claims in that video.

It's not the strength of gravity that defines the finely tuned universe, it's the force of gravity.

You mean the gravitational constant would be different? what's the significance of that unless it also affects gravitation that life forms would experience? It's not as critical as he says it is, and your source confirms that:

Computer simulations suggest that not all of the purportedly "fine-tuned" parameters may be as fine-tuned as has been claimed. Victor Stenger has simulated different universes in which four fundamental parameters are varied. He found that long-lived stars could exist over a wide parameter range, and concluded that "... a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes".

Well amen to that, thanks for pointing me to something that makes sense instead of that horridly stupid video! I starred your post for the good source.