GOD EXISTS

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:...Although sometimes people call it Newton's Theory of Gravitation, it was really only a Law. (Not to downplay Newton's accomplishment... but that's so much easier to formulate than a Theory)...

What? No. A "Law" is something Proven, a Theory is something that is believed but not proven. You start with a hypothesis which is a speculation based on observation. After positive testing, it can be considered a theory. Once it is proven then it becomes a Law. So many people misuse the word Theory to mean something proven - it is not, that is a Law.

Since Hutch already beat me to the correct definition of terms, I'll just ramble a bit.


This is a hugely popular misunderstanding of what those words mean in science. The problem is that in everyday life "theory" actually has the meaning you're layig out there. Uncle Bob has himself a "theory" about who really shot Kennedy, that kind of thing. Which really just means he has himself some half-assed idea about something.

But Uncle Bob's "theory" and a Scientific Theory are two totally different things. They bear no resemblance to each other whatsoever. in order to be considered a Scientific Theory this is the list of criteria you need to check off:



* It needs to account for ALL available observational data (of relevance, a Theory of Gravity does not for example have to account for your observation that your nephew is unusually fond of peanut butter)


* It needs to make testable predictions.

* It must be robustly supported by multiple independent lines of evidence.



A scientific Theory is not just some unproven idea about something. If you ever come up with something that manages to attain the status of a scientific Theory you're looking at a likely Nobel.

Science versus religion.

One has terabytes of carefully tested data, that all hangs together and makes logical sense.

The other has a myriad of very different faiths, each of which "just knows" that their way is the truth. None of which have any actual facts or evidence to support them.

One enables us to make computers, cars, aircraft and other complex stuff that works well. The other seems more interested in passing the collection plate and sometimes killing others, who's "just knows" is different to theirs.

I know which one I trust.

And yet science has yet to prove something other than a conscious being is the primal cause of Creation. No hypothesis has been tested and generated sufficiently predictable results to warrant a theory and certainly not enough to warrant a law describing the nature of that primal cause.

What happened in that time before the current physical laws allowed predictions? What changed to shift the emptiness of a void into the enormous potential of our universe? Science is wonderful to describe the processes of the universe once it exists. Its less useful to describe processes that predates existence itself.

PeterZ wrote:And yet science has yet to prove something other than a conscious being is the primal cause of Creation. No hypothesis has been tested and generated sufficiently predictable results to warrant a theory and certainly not enough to warrant a law describing the nature of that primal cause.

What happened in that time before the current physical laws allowed predictions? What changed to shift the emptiness of a void into the enormous potential of our universe? Science is wonderful to describe the processes of the universe once it exists. Its less useful to describe processes that predates existence itself.

There is no need for anybody to prove that some conscious being was not a primal cause, because nobody has presented any evidence of any kind that one was.

A collection of Bronze Age fairy tales written by a lot of profoundly ignorant old men who aren't around to be questioned does not constitute evidence. If it did, we'd have to also accept a lot of other fairy tales that both contradict and pre-date them by thousands of years.

Was there an empty void? Was there a "before"? Did time mean the same thing 14 billion years ago? Nobody knows. Nobody knows what is beyond the 13.7 billion light-year "limit" of the universe, because any light from further away has not reached us yet. There may not be anything, but we do not know.

And just because somebody has invented an "answer" that is not supported by any evidence does not make it right. Unknown and Not Proven are perfectly valid answers in the absence of any facts.
-------------------
It takes two to make peace. It only takes one to make war.

Indeed you support my point. Thank you. Absent a theory supported by data or a causal law described by mathematics the primal cause is unknown. To assert a belief in such circumstance is to practice faith.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:And yet science has yet to prove something other than a conscious being is the primal cause of Creation. No hypothesis has been tested and generated sufficiently predictable results to warrant a theory and certainly not enough to warrant a law describing the nature of that primal cause.

What happened in that time before the current physical laws allowed predictions? What changed to shift the emptiness of a void into the enormous potential of our universe? Science is wonderful to describe the processes of the universe once it exists. Its less useful to describe processes that predates existence itself.

There is no need for anybody to prove that some conscious being was not a primal cause, because nobody has presented any evidence of any kind that one was.

A collection of Bronze Age fairy tales written by a lot of profoundly ignorant old men who aren't around to be questioned does not constitute evidence. If it did, we'd have to also accept a lot of other fairy tales that both contradict and pre-date them by thousands of years.

Was there an empty void? Was there a "before"? Did time mean the same thing 14 billion years ago? Nobody knows. Nobody knows what is beyond the 13.7 billion light-year "limit" of the universe, because any light from further away has not reached us yet. There may not be anything, but we do not know.

And just because somebody has invented an "answer" that is not supported by any evidence does not make it right. Unknown and Not Proven are perfectly valid answers in the absence of any facts.
-------------------
It takes two to make peace. It only takes one to make war.

In science, a theory is more important than a law. a law is a detailing of how things will work, but not why, eg newtowns laws of motion, while the actual theory behind motion is newtonian mechanics and general and special relativity. Science assigns different meanings to theories and laws as compared to public understanding, which is where you are tripping up.

MAD-4A wrote:No, we believe that is how it happened it is the "Big Bang Theory" not "Law"


These laws are the gathered observations of data, and weren't demanded. These numbers are based on human measurements, such as the metre, so if you desire to 'change the speed of light' redefine the length of the metre to legnthen/shorten it. THe gravitational constant is just that, a constant that needs to be added to our formula to make them work with whats observed, as otherwise the math goes wrong.

You don't know that. Who demanded those laws - why is C 185,000 M/S instead of 192,000? who came up with that #, who decided on the gravitational constant of the universe?

It does not need to be more complex to work, it needs to be less complex in order to be more likely to work. a spade is less complex than a backhoe, and has less things that can go wrong with it to prevent it from being effective. Your track will more likely work if its just a single slope, than compared to trying to recreate a f1 circuit. And your creator is currently more likely mathematical constructs, or another universe, rather than a supernatural being.

Why? Dose a kids Hot-Wheel track have to be more complex to work because someone assembled it, or would it have to be more complex to work on it's own without someone assembling it? How does the car get on the track by itself, let alone start running down the track? Who made the car? Add someone to build the track, place the car on the track & then launch the car down the track & it becomes just some strips of plastic. the kid doesn't need to keep putting his hands in while the car is in motion. He just sits back and watches, until the car stops or jumps the track. Then he makes an adjustment and sends it going again. Much simpler than a self spawning Hot-Wheel track that somehow produces it's own car & sends it down the track.

Some people also forget that "The Big Bang" is just a label for an event that we can not describe because it took place under conditions so different from any we can observe today that our theories are not valid. It's more a placeholder than a description.
------------------
Complex questions never have simple answers. Hell, most simple questions don't have simple answers.

PeterZ wrote:Indeed you support my point. Thank you. Absent a theory supported by data or a causal law described by mathematics the primal cause is unknown. To assert a belief in such circumstance is to practice faith.

Earlier in this thread, you posted this:

PeterZ wrote:He was there before the Big Bang, He caused the initial spark to ignite the Big Bang and shaped all that followed. The truth of that is independent of belief.

"The truth of that is independent of belief", you said. What's your evidence?

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly cool with you having faith and believing in a creator god and all that. What I am not cool with is you stating that the object of your belief is real as unequivocal, objective truth without any evidence for it.

PeterZ, I do want to emphasise that I do respect you, your intellect, and your beliefs. You have proved elsewhere in these forums that you have a keen mind.

I do however want to try and come to an understanding of how you (and others here) believe what you do. From what you have posted it appears that you follow the Christian creed, and possibly one of the more literal branches of that creed.

Now, did you come to follow that particular strand of belief from - careful study of the multitude of religions, because your parents sent you to Sunday School in an aligned belief system, you had a divine revelation, or something else that I am unaware of?

Basically my question could be stated in two parts. Do you believe in a specific creator, and if so why that particular variation?

From a clinical approach there is as much proven evidence that Mollock, Allah, Yahweh, Scientology, Buddha, or about a thousand others over millennia could be that creator. Why yours?

What I wrote was that the truth is the truth regardless of what anyone might believe. That cuts both ways. If what I believe is true, your disbelief doesn't change a thing. If what I believe is not true, my belief doesn't make it true faith or no faith. Also, the truth will remain true whether I can provide proof or not. The objective truth exists independent of belief.

All we are doing is trying to persuade each other. Whether we succeed or not doesn't change the truth. Of course we believe different things to be true and in this particular case we both require faith to hold our beliefs.

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Indeed you support my point. Thank you. Absent a theory supported by data or a causal law described by mathematics the primal cause is unknown. To assert a belief in such circumstance is to practice faith.

Earlier in this thread, you posted this:

PeterZ wrote:He was there before the Big Bang, He caused the initial spark to ignite the Big Bang and shaped all that followed. The truth of that is independent of belief.

"The truth of that is independent of belief", you said. What's your evidence?

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly cool with you having faith and believing in a creator god and all that. What I am not cool with is you stating that the object of your belief is real as unequivocal, objective truth without any evidence for it.