Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?

If intelligence is not required, how did the energy of the singularity know how to create a universe without having the four forces + the laws of physics? How would energy create a universe without a blueprint? If intelligence did not place those laws in the zero-volume bundle of Sinularity, what did? Where did they come form in such a fine tuned form to create a universe? You have to explain that if you want to make a point that everything is a natural process. And isn't the cause of a natural process another natural process of another natural process that will lead to trillions of singularities and universes(aka the Big Crunch Big Bang model) and so as you say the nonsensical conclusion that the natural process predates natural process? You can choose the nonsense you want to believe, there is plenty to choose from these days.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Sure, Einstein said it best:"A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems."Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Hi, Agobot. First, this is only proof that the physical laws are integral to the function of the universe. It is not support for any hypothesis as the underlying motivations or purposes of the laws and four forces.Second, the argument that you are combatting here is that the singularity doesn't, in fact, "know" how to make a universe, and didn’t, in fact, have anything to do with creating the universe. The argument is that this universe happened because the sequence of events simply led in this direction. Forethought is simply not required for results to happen.----- Why does it need a blueprint? Intelligence doesn't even need a blueprint, Agobot. Why can't energy just "make it up as it goes along"? Knowledge of the results and implications of a particular action isn’t even required to perform that action, as is evidenced by the development of lead cookware in the 1800’s and nuclear bombs in the 1940’s and 1950’s.----- Your theory is purely about what conditions must be met before the phenomenon can happen (i.e. intelligence must predate order). Since the prerequisites for the phenomenon to happen include the phenomenon itself happening, your phenomenon cannot happen (that is, since intelligence itself is order, it must be predated by intelligence).However, your turning the tables on my theory is a strawman for the simple reason that I do not have a theory for you to turn the tables on. As any true scientist should not be afraid to admit, I do not know the answer to this question. But, I am not required to know the real answer before I can know when a proposed answer is wrong: it doesn’t take a genius to realize that anything that won’t happen until after it happens is not going to happen.Obviously, then, I can conclude that intelligence cannot be required before order can occur, even if I don’t have a logical alternative.-----This is getting dreadfully off-topic, and I would like to respect Straggler’s efforts to discuss science and atheism. However, I might be interested in a topic about First Cause (though I’m not sure how much I could contribute to it, given my lack of background), if you are interested in starting one.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Yes the laws and constants must have been integrated into the singularity but I believe your interpretation of this fact is a gross over-simplification. On what basis can one claim those laws and constants were not there for a reason? How can all this(and I list just a small part of what's needed) that caused our existence and the universe's existence be uncaused, for no reason, out of luck, a coincidence in the singularity:The Planck constant
The speed of light in vacuum
Proton mass
Elementary charge
Fermi coupling constant
Boltzmann constant
Bohr radius
Newtonian constant of gravitation
Dirac's constant
Faraday constant
Bohr magneton
von Klitzing constant
Nuclear magneton
Wien displacement law constant
Magnetic flux quantumNewton's laws of motion
Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion
Newton’s law of universal gravitation
The four laws of thermodynamics
Law of conservation of energy
Joule’s first and second law
Newton’s law of cooling
Conservation of momentum law
Boyle’s law
Conservation of angular momentum law
Charge conservation law
Special Relativity with its Mass-energy equivalence
General Relativity
Law of heat conduction
General law of gravitation
Ohm's Law
Kirchhoff's circuit laws
Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation
Maxwell's equations
Faraday's law of induction:
Schrdinger equationEtc., etc....A universe that could support life couldn't create itself by itself from energy without most of these laws and constants, JUST energy is worthless, these laws and constants must have been intergal to the singularity, i don't believe they were sent from Jesus or Allah and i am not content with the "we don't know yet, we might know in the future" bit.I view these laws and constants as the DNA of the singularity, a blueprint of sorts, that allowed the development of the universe to its present state. And I have listed a small part of all laws that mankind has discovered that govern the universe and every process in it, even the functioning of your body.A sequence of events MUST have been the result of physical laws and mathematics that govern them. We as human beings cannot understand completely uncaused events. Let's not place religious beliefs in science, science is doing everything it can to remove such UNcaused possibility notions. Whereever it can't, philosophy takes over and often religion, but that's too offtopic.But creating a universe that could harbour life is by VERY FAR, in fact by infinite far, the hardest thing any human being can ever possibly imagine. First inside the singularity you must have laws that govern its behaviour between T=0 and T=10^-44sec. Then you must have another set of laws inside it that we also don't know what they were the fundamental initial physical laws under which our Universe unfolded, then you must also have inside of it, the laws that i listed above. Quite possibly(this is just speculation) transition laws are also mandatory that could govern the universe in going from one state to the other. Anyway, all those laws are the blueprint, the DNA of the singularity that emerged with the Big Bang and made our existence possible. Do you believe all this was a coincidence? You can go ahead and invoke a multiverse with trillions of different laws and constants, however that is just religious belief, incredulity into the logical conclusion that a greater intelligence must have set all those laws and constants into the sigularity along with the infinite amount of energy.Here is Stephen Hawking's say on the balance that's needed and that must have been caused by physical laws which we are unaware of:"If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million it would have recollasped before it reached its present size."Hawk On the otherhand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form. The expansion rate itself depends on many factors, such as the initial explosive energy, the mass of the universe, and the strength of gravitational forces.'Stephen Hawking's say on the physical laws emerging with the singularity in his book "Brief History of Time" is quite simple and he simply feels such questions should be the job of philosophy. Energy is worthless, it can't even have meaning without physical laws that would govern its behaviour. It can't "go along" without physical laws, so how did these laws, constants and correlations get there inside the singularity along with the infinite energy in a zero-volume dot?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Your list of "laws" is hugely redundant.It is also incorrect that the constants can't be changed. They may need to be changed more than one at a time though.

If mathematics can be used to describe things that do not physically exist and can form abstractions that have no basis in reality then does that not imply that mathematics is not simply a "description of the universe" as you stated previously?Does the universe "obey" mathematical "laws" or is the human construction we call mathematics at times and in part derived from the way that the universe behaves?I don't really have an answer to this. My point is to convey that your statements and assertions regarding the obviousness of these things are overly simplistic.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I meant the maths that is important to us is the maths that describes reality. So the maths that i had in mind describes the physical laws that were present in the singularity and that "took over" shortly after the Big Bang. I didn't mean mathematics is only a description of the actual world, maths can be a construct of the mind in the sense that it can describe fictional events as imaginary time. Maths is just a kind of script for very complicated logics and correlations, which are very hard to describe by words. I am not a matematician, maybe someone will chime in, although i don't know how this has any bearing on the discussion at hand. I don't think mathematical laws are truly laws. They are theoretical depictions of underlying order created by physical laws that arrived in a bundle with the energy of the singularity. These physical laws cannot be described with words and language, so we use maths. BTW, we are just beginning to amass all the laws that govern the universe, we may never collect all of them, we could well go extinct in a few centuries.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Exactly.
So it should hardly come as a surprise that the universe in which we find ourselves operates in such a way.
In such a logical and mathematical way. So we have no idea how possible, impossible or even inevitable a particular universe might be. We have no idea whether a range of different universes were or are possible or whether it had to be this one. If any at all.Our ignorance is so complete that any statements of probability or likelihood are themselves nothing more than baseless subjective conjecture.

It isn’t often that someone manages to provide even the smallest hint as to God’s existence and the purpose of life in the space of a single post, without even realizing it. (Please find the allusion to one of your previous statements in jest ) This is really a discussion for another thread/forum, but I want to share here a result of much rational thought.Worship of God boils down to one thing: wanting to make your father proud of you. God doesn’t always treat people the same way you would treat your son, because there are larger issues involved, and He must provide lessons of a far greater nature than exist within your obviously loving home. Many organized religions cover over the simplicity of our relationship to God with so much extravagant ritual and unsubstantiated doctrine as to make God unrecognizable. Something happened in the ancient past that ruined the perfect “homelife” that God originally intended, something that deceived people into thinking that God was not the loving father he truly is. To the point of this thread, the father that God truly is cannot be found through scientific thought alone. If there was only one accepted concept of faith, I would agree with you. But there are several:

quote:

---

A certain number of religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticize implicit faith as being irrational, and see faith as ignorance of reality: a strong belief in something with no evidence.

​

In the rationalist view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or scientific evidence.

​

Michael Green includes the idea that faith is belief not based on evidence as one of the myths about Christianity. Faith is to commit oneself to act based on sufficient experience to warrant belief, but without absolute proof.

​

Atheist Richard Dawkins contends that faith is merely belief without evidence.
(Wikipedia: Faith)

---

This might be true if we were talking about the same concept of faith, but I don’t believe we are. I don’t seek only that evidence which supports my beliefs. I have altered my beliefs when I found they were contradictory to objective evidence and rationality. (Message 158) And in my view, there’s no such thing as objective evidence that is unnecessary or inferior to faith. My point was to address the issue of whether faith is evidence of things not seen. If the quantum world had been discovered through faith, that faith, based on a necessary source of revealed knowledge in the absence of scientific instruments, would have qualified as evidence of things not seen. I have offered a rational basis for my claim that faith is evidence. (Rom 10:17; Jam 2:24; and the description of faith in Message 110) You haven’t recognized it as rational. Faith sounds completely absurd to a mindset that recognizes only empirical or scientific evidence as valid. But in fact, no one should expect others to believe in imperceptible things without something to go on. (Mt 6:26-30; 1 Cor 15:3-8). I haven’t read any other holy books. But I have read research by others who are attempting to find agreement between other holy books and scientific evidence, just as I am with the Bible. I have opened my mind to this research, but I personally have only addressed the Bible because, 1) I cannot speak knowledgably about any other holy book, and 2) The Bible is the most commonly referenced source of revealed knowledge on these forums. I believe the answer to this question is No:

quote:

---

Despite the existence of well-tested theories, science cannot claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject or of the field of study due to epistemological problems that are unavoidable and preclude the discovery or establishment of absolute truth.
(Wikipedia: Science)

---

Why do I prefer faith over scientific reasoning alone? Because faith is possible. Faith is possible for human beings as further means to comprehend reality, and it provides a view of a bigger picture than science and empiricism alone can provide. Faith is difficult for some; it’s not science. Like science, it’s not always used correctly or legitimately. But that doesn’t make it invalid as a means of pursuing absolute truth.In my personal opinion, for some people “the god hypothesis” is a convenient way to lump all gods and faiths into a single bucket and to reject them all in one swift kick without having to address them rationally by examining each one individually to determine if any have valid claims based on substantiated evidence and revealed knowledge.I’ve begun my own examination with the Bible. My posts Message 158 and Message 160 were meant as a gauge and catalyst for a meeting of the minds, to get a feel for where the debate between science and faith is willing to go. No one that I can see has responded, except for Straggler, in a way:

quote:

---

All are equally uncorroborated. But lets start a new thread or join an existing one if you want to discuss the veracity of the bible itself as that is not really the topic here.

---

However, I don’t wish to discuss the veracity of the Bible alone. I wish to discuss it in the light of scientific evidence. To be honest, I’m not a “leader” personality, and I’ve been relunctant to start a new thread without a good feel for how the idea will be received.

quote:

---

My point was to address the issue of whether faith is evidence of things not seen. If the quantum world had been discovered through faith, that faith, based on a necessary source of revealed knowledge in the absence of scientific instruments, would have qualified as evidence of things not seen.

---

Except that that Quantum world WASN'T discovered through faith as you admit. Thus your point does not address the issue, just as I said.

quote:

---

I have offered a rational basis for my claim that faith is evidence. (Rom 10:17; Jam 2:24; and the description of faith in Message 110) You haven’t recognized it as rational.

---

"Because the Bible says so" isn't exactly rational. The Bible is not exactly infallible. And the rest is mere assertions without explanation - and so no basis at all.

PaulK, please read my post again. Where do I admit that the quantum world was discovered through faith? Your argument on this matter proceeds from a simple misunderstanding.

quote:

---

This is obviously not the same concept of evidence held by most (all?) scientists and atheists. Are they just fanciful words? I don’t think so. Evidence of the quantum world has always existed; it has always been right before human eyes. So why was it only a century ago that the quantum world was discovered? Because only a century ago did we start to develop the “eyes” to “see” it. Is there evidence of the things not seen in the quantum realm? Are not laser beams, superconductors, and transistors evidence of things not seen?
  —JungEinstein

---

This same line of reasoning can be applied to scientific evidence. Scientists believe that only scientific evidence is valid "because science says so." This is what I hope to explore with time.

Hi, Agobot.I feel a bit like you're not understanding me at times. Such as this: In Message 186, I wrote this: And, in Message 198, I said this: I have not said that the physical constants exist without a reason, yet you still think that this is what I am saying. All I have done is point out that your argument is not consistent with logic.----- What option do we have? If you’re dissatisfied with the current level of scientific knowledge, go get a degree in physics and find the solution yourself. But, don’t make up solutions that can’t be shown with current science, because you’d be effectively doing the same thing as invoking Jesus or Allah.----- First, I have not invoked a multiverse, Agobot. I have not said that all possibilities must happen in order to make any one of them happen. All I have said is that one possibility happened. In other words, all I have said is that something happened. That shouldn’t be too hard for you to accept.Second, you are exaggerating when you say “trillions of different laws and constants.” Most physical equations don’t represent distinct, independent phenomena. For instance, Newton’s laws of motion are not three different principles, but descriptions of three different consequences of a single principle. In fact, most of physics results from a very small set of underlying principles. Gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces (I understand that the weak force is sometimes conflated with the electriomagnetic force) are nearly sufficient to explain all physical phenomena (as far as I know: correct me if I’m wrong), and the formulas and laws are all just consequences of this small handful of actual principles.----- Actually, Stephen Hawking doesn’t say anything about balance or about what must have caused it. All he says is that things would have been different if something different had happened.The mere fact that something improbable happened doesn’t mean it had to have been intentional. Flipping 100 heads is statistically just as probable as flipping 50 heads and 50 tails. There are 100 possible combinations of heads and tails in 100 coin flips, and every possibility has a 1% chance of happening. So, whatever happens, it will be extremely unlikely.So, if the universe’s expansion rate had been different from what it actually was, it would still be unlikely, and you would still say, “Wow! It required a lot of balance to hit that exact value” (ignore the fact that you would not exist under these conditions: I'm using a bit of literary license).Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

quote:

---

PaulK, please read my post again. Where do I admit that the quantum world was discovered through faith? Your argument on this matter proceeds from a simple misunderstanding.

---

Reread what I wrote. I stated that you admitted that the Quantum world WASN'T discovered through faith. As you did in Message 110:

quote:

---

This same line of reasoning can be applied to scientific evidence. Scientists believe that only scientific evidence is valid "because science says so."

---

Except that it isn't the same line of reasoning. You're simply echoing my statement, without applying reasoning at all. If you did you would see that your statement is absurd.

It isn't.If faith is evidence then two mutually exclusive and contradictory conclusions can be equally "evidenced" with no faith based recourse for resolving this conflict.Obviously both cannot be true. So as a form of evidence faith is obviously inherently unable to differentiate between truth and falsehood.As a form of evidence it is so unreliable as to be totally undeserving of the term by any meaningful or common definition.Thus faith is not evidence. Evidently. No theory that can ever actually be physically demonstrated to be reliable has ever resulted from faith based "evidence". Never mind one as incredibly verified and successful as QM.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Paul, you're absolutely right. My apologies. My head was surely in another place for missing your obvious point. It was your remark,

quote:

---

If you could show an example of someone who discovered the quantum world through faith, before the evidence became available to our eyes you would maybe have a point.

---

that followed my post that I had in mind. The simple misunderstanding was mine.And you're right, I don't know whether or not anyone discovered the quantum world through faith. I was trying to say that the only way it could have been discovered through faith is if there had been revealed knowledge about it, but I could be mistaken. I'm personally not aware of any such revelation, that's why I said no one discovered it through faith.