Need help with this theory of Scientific proof for the existence of God/Intelligence

So since there are observable laws of nature, including ones that the Big bang had to rely on, the implies that those laws pre-existed the big bang theory. If that's the case, wouldn't it prove that an intelligent being/design is behind these laws that presupposed the big bang??? (Theoretically speaking)

No, it equally proves that these laws always existed, they just had nothing to govern.

So the Universe in all its vastness has nothing in it but laws such as gravity, intertia, etc. The laws of Physics.

You cannot see them or test them because there is nothing for them to test. As soon as the big bang happens, these laws come into play "governing" the chaos of the universe.

I'm asking this with the notion that there is no randomness, or perhaps that there is randomness but that it is subject to these laws.

I go with the second, that all things in the universe are entirely random, but they are subject to the laws of nature, which makes them do what they do.

So what I'm observing from my perspective of all this, is that there has to be some kind of intelligence at the beginning of any of these orginal creations such as the creation of the laws that govern the Universe(s), radomness, evoultion, and so forth. Just like us observing matter influences matter, what-ever intelligence put everything on it's course orginally also influences matter through observing it but on a grnder scale.

No, see your falling into the same trap that the ancients did.

I always imagine that the explosion which brought the universe into existance needed a catalyst.

This could have been an intelligent being. One which would have died quite suddenly as he found himself in the middle of the largest explosion known to the universe.

It could equally have been something random, a couple of atoms hitting each other in the wrong way. BOOM. the same happens in Nuclear weapons.

I think you are asking the wrong questions, even if you dont intend to.

i say that the beginning of the universe has no real relevance on the present day, so your own view should equally be pleasing to you, but have no bearing.

do not ask "Does the existence of the big bang prove god exists?" because this is too simple a question, and leads you to not an answer, but a preference.

Ask, "What does the existence of the big bang proove?"

It proves that a god could have existed.

It could also prove a myriad of other things.

Alright,
So lemme tackle this babelfish argument here since in a way it does pose some significance.

I think you can take the existence of the babelfish either way in support of thiesm or athiesm. Either way, something is responsible for setting everything forth, both randomness and the laws that govern, or that have come out of randomness.

We have a responsibility factor in the picture here. Getting to the first push, so to speak, perhaps there is intelligence there, perhaps chaos itself had to be created.

Either way, the whole faith in God thing, a thiest will tell you that it's not the Faith that he exists, but the faith that he will direct their life towrds the best possible outcome. A thiest will tell you that they do have direct subjective proof that there is a God, and yet since subjectivism can't be directly, empirically, measured do we not call this proof???? Is subjective proof/truth still proof/truth?

Also, in the Biblical texts (some-where in there) Basically God is saying something to the extent of, the proof that I exist is in the complexity of nature. So something like; since nature itself is complex and intelligent, therefor a creator exists.

I still think the babelfish argument is going in circles with thiesm, plus with my previous post, something still had to happen to form the laws of the universe that have governed everything to where we are today. 1st push.

So the argument/evidence comes down to how the "laws" got there. I wonder if there is a way to mathematically create such an environment based on virtual reality???

Still to many unknowns I suppose????

Then again we do have infinity calculus with many formulas that prove the existential possibility of infinity, and coupled with that we have descriptions that one of God's (or whatever you want to call this intelligence whther real or not)....one of the charachateristics is infinite being.

I think you can take the existence of the babelfish either way in support of thiesm or athiesm. Either way, something is responsible for setting everything forth, both randomness and the laws that govern, or that have come out of randomness.

Well if you want, thats your idea.

but its your faith which leads you to that conclusion because you 'want' a creator to exist.

How bout i put it this way.

A creator DOES exist

1)Evolution, gravity, big bang, light, dark matter, physics,etc
2)God

Both 1 and 2 are EXACTLY THE SAME, but with different names.

The difference is that over time Gods have been anthropomorphised, which means that people begin to attribute new things of them.

Hense the evolution of religion. Compare the Genesis Flood Story, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Epic of Atrahasis.

All the same story, but they evolved because the gods changed due to differences in faith.

God is just a collective name for 'why things happen'

We have a responsibility factor in the picture here. Getting to the first push, so to speak, perhaps there is intelligence there, perhaps chaos itself had to be created.

Perhaps it doesnt. Perhaps the universe began as just an infinite space with a massive ball of every element compressed together. Eventually it burst and gravity began to create the universe as we know it.

In this scenario, the forces which made the ball burst, and then which shaped the universe due to atoms colliding and so forth, are collectively known as god by a human onlooker, because they dont understand about things such as physics and natural laws.

Either way, the whole faith in God thing, a thiest will tell you that it's not the Faith that he exists, but the faith that he will direct their life towrds the best possible outcome. A thiest will tell you that they do have direct subjective proof that there is a God, and yet since subjectivism can't be directly, empirically, measured do we not call this proof???? Is subjective proof/truth still proof/truth?

As an atheist i say that faith in god is alright, but the concept of heaven and all other things attributed to god is strange.

You can have faith in gravity, that you will drop a stone on earth and it will fall to the ground.

But having faith that gravity will take you to a special place when you die?

Thats the 'leap of faith' that atheists refuse to take.

Also, in the Biblical texts (some-where in there) Basically God is saying something to the extent of, the proof that I exist is in the complexity of nature. So something like; since nature itself is complex and intelligent, therefor a creator exists.

Isnt this evidence of an ancient writer? A long time ago, the man who was writing the text doesnt understand how the universe works. Doesnt understand about gravity, magnetics and other natural laws and principals.

he says that he doesnt understand the universe, so that means that it is gods will that he doesnt understand it, because it is gods will that these things happen, and god works in mysterious ways.

That it how he rationalises a universe which he cannot understand due to primitive science.

So the argument/evidence comes down to how the "laws" got there. I wonder if there is a way to mathematically create such an environment based on virtual reality???

Such a program wouldnt succeed in proving anything.

Human beings have a way of finding patterns in things, even if there are none there.

The scientists would use their data to prove one way, the Religious types would use the same evidence to prove a pattern exists, proving a god exists.

and again, it would all come down to faith.

Then again we do have infinity calculus with many formulas that prove the existential possibility of infinity, and coupled with that we have descriptions that one of God's (or whatever you want to call this intelligence whther real or not)....one of the charachateristics is infinite being.

Perhaps.

"There is an old belief that as soon as the universe in all of its complexity is understood, it suddenly disappears and is replaced with something even more mind boggling.

There is another belief that says that this has already happened"

So athiestic scientists believe there is no God and in their view, all of existence today comes from the Big Bang and then evolution. Some even go as far as multi-verses to explain that our current Universe could have been born from another one. It's all devoid of a God according to them, point one.

"The relativity principle in connection with the basic Maxwellian equations demands that the mass should be a direct measure of the energy contained in a body; light transfers mass. With radium there should be a noticeable diminution of mass. The idea is amusing and enticing; but whether the Almighty is laughing at it and is leading me up the garden path - that I cannot know." [Letter to Conrad Habicht in 1905, pg. 196 Folsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography]





[edit on 6-10-2007 by redbarron626]

So athiestic scientists believe there is no God and in their view, all of existence today comes from the Big Bang and then evolution. Some even go as far as multi-verses to explain that our current Universe could have been born from another one. It's all devoid of a God according to them, point one.


"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

This is a quote from Albert Einstien in reply to a letter from a small child who asked if scientists pray!

well of course, what do you classify as praying?

Ok,
So couldn't you say that the same Biblical writer that said proof of God is visible by the complexity and intelligence of nature itself, also say that proof is visible in teh complexity and intelligence of the current and future understanding of the laws of science???

And about God and everything being the same thing, mystics from different backgrounds(spiritual paths) all pretty much agree that God's presence is "omnipresence" therefore God is in all things and all things are in God, but they are still seperate, therefore all things are not God and God is not all things.
______
So in in the case that direct scientfic proof of the existence of God or spiritual realms, in what field or how do you suppose such a proof would be plausible???

Originally posted by redbarron626
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

This is a quote from Albert Einstien in reply to a letter from a small child who asked if scientists pray!

I don't see why pleading to authority helps the case. Einstein also rejected the notions of a personal god. Reading the quote shows Einstein as proposing a sort of Spinoza's god. That is, god = nature.

A large number of scientists are not convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, ergo, Einstein was wrong.

well you can say Einstein was wrong, or you can see he's right and eveyone esle hasn't caught up yet or has over looked this. Always important to see both sides.

Originally posted by dominicus
well you can say Einstein was wrong, or you can see he's right and eveyone esle hasn't caught up yet or has over looked this. Always important to see both sides.

I can say he was wrong depending on how we interpret it. He stated:

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe"

Now, if you view an atheist as someone who should disagree with this, then he was wrong. That is, that this spirit is a supernatural god-thing. Many, many very serious scientists are atheists. If you take it as just meaning that scientists are in awe of nature, then I think he was right.

[edit on 6-10-2007 by melatonin]

You're asking for scientific proof of a philosophical concept. It doesn't work that way.

But if you just had to, you would not look for proof directly. You would look indirectly for evidence of influence. Ocean sunsets don't count.

>
Like looking for a black hole.

[edit on 6-10-2007 by apc]

APC,
So what your saying is that we can't use science to prove something philospohical, sort of like we can't prove something is beautiful (painting, song....) scientifically???

So that would imply that saying you "don't believe in God because there is no scientific proof" would be an insufficient argument because science is the wrong function to prove God?

I'm saying there's nothing to argue about. Philosophy is the contemplation of the empirical. It's apples to oranges.

>
Actually I guess it'd be more like apples to apple trees... hmm...

[edit on 6-10-2007 by apc]

@Dominicus

So couldn't you say that the same Biblical writer that said proof of God is visible by the complexity and intelligence of nature itself, also say that proof is visible in teh complexity and intelligence of the current and future understanding of the laws of science???

Possibly, but again. People back then didnt have the scientific knowledge we have today.

They ask, "When i drop a rock, why does it fall down?"

They couldnt measure its fall, they couldnt do anything about it. Their only explanation is "gods will is that the rock falls down" See how god is equivilent to natural laws and nature?

And about God and everything being the same thing, mystics from different backgrounds(spiritual paths) all pretty much agree that God's presence is "omnipresence" therefore God is in all things and all things are in God, but they are still seperate, therefore all things are not God and God is not all things.

Is Gravity not an omnipresent force on earth? (remember, many of these ancient writers believed the stars werent other suns, but just lights in the sky)

So in in the case that direct scientfic proof of the existence of God or spiritual realms, in what field or how do you suppose such a proof would be plausible???

Spiritual realms? there is no way to get scientific proof of a spiritual realm that i know of.

God was originally the way of explaining the naturally unexplainable at the time.

@Melatonin

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe"

Now, if you view an atheist as someone who should disagree with this, then he was wrong. That is, that this spirit is a supernatural god-thing. Many, many very serious scientists are atheists. If you take it as just meaning that scientists are in awe of nature, then I think he was right.

A very true statement.

You're asking for scientific proof of a philosophical concept. It doesn't work that way.

But if you just had to, you would not look for proof directly. You would look indirectly for evidence of influence. Ocean sunsets don't count.

>
Like looking for a black hole.

Thats no fun, your taking the easy way out of explaining it.

So what your saying is that we can't use science to prove something philospohical, sort of like we can't prove something is beautiful (painting, song....) scientifically???

So that would imply that saying you "don't believe in God because there is no scientific proof" would be an insufficient argument because science is the wrong function to prove God?

See here is the contention.

'God' is a different force for everyone. Someone who believes god is the collective belief of some sort of plan behind the natural process, then yes, that can be tested and verified.

Someone who believes god is a big beard in the sky who has the answer to all lifes problems, then no, that is up to faith. Faith cannot be tested by scientific means.

reply to post by dominicus


As far as I understand it, this is already a standing point of view on God. Deists believe that God created natural law and left the universe to form itself, and to this day does not interfere with it.

And while it isn't as sophisticated as a VR super computer would be, you might find this interesting:
en.wikipedia.org...

i suggest watching a video on google video called "what we still dont know", comes up with theory's of why we need a intelligent designer etc...

i suggest watching a video on google video called "what we still dont know", comes up with theory's of why we need a intelligent designer etc...

As this is basically turning into an arguement of faith vs evidence, cant we have your opinion?

I prefer opinions to videos.

Originally posted by somedude
Deists believe that God created natural law and left the universe to form itself, and to this day does not interfere with it.

In my opinion these philosophies are pointless and indefensible. If there exists an omnipotent being that was involved in our coming into existence, one that can not be described as simply part of an advanced alien species, it would really have to be involved on some level in our daily lives. Otherwise there's nothing to justify the speculation beyond an unwavering faith in religion. Religion that is built around worship of a very boring god.

reply to post by apc


Well to be honest I'm not sure if they DO actually worship the God that they believe to be. I only have a very basic understanding of their beliefs in the existence of God (thank you philosophy 101), but I would imagine they aren't your average Christian since believing in non intervention would throw out many accounts of the Bible as well as the whole idea of Jesus.

It may be the category some of the more scientific IDers fall into. And without dragging my own personal beliefs into this, I can understand how they might subscribe to that; the universe is a beautiful thing of order on the grand scale.