Summations Only

Science investigates that which can be detected. Science is a method for investigation.If supernatural entities can be detected then we can apply the methods of science to investigate them.If such entities cannot be detected then, whether they actually exist or not, any claims to have expererienced such entities tell us more about the internal workings of the claimants mind than they do any aspect of reality external to that mind.

If you are going to infer or deduce the existence of the supernatural by observing reality you need to be able to distinguish between a universe where there is no supernatural involvement and one where there is.What would the universe look like without any supernatural involvement?
What would the universe look like with supernatural involvement included?
How have you come to these conclusions? Gravity is an observable phenomenon. We infer their existence of dark matter because our theory of gravtitation, which we know is able to make accurate predictions regarding gravitational phenonema , suggests that there is considerably more mass in the universe than so far directly observed.What similarly compelling (i.e. able to make testable predictions) theoretical basis can be utilised in order to infer or deduce the existence of the supernatural? I think your claims rely on the rather debateable premise that the observable universe is so ordered/impressive/wondrous/whatever that it must have been created by some sort of super-being.I also think it worth noting that humanity has a rather dismal record of erroneously invoking gods as necessary causal agents for phenomenon deemed wondrous and impressive.But I, like everyone else here, am still waiting for this evidence you keep promsing us.....

You seem very confused about the use of the term "fictional" (or more commonly "fictitious") as used to describe perceived forces in physics.Centrifugal forces are most commonly described as "fictitious". This is the sort of thing one learns about at school level physics. According to GR gravity is a similarly fictitious force.

quote:

---

The notion of "fictitious force" comes up in general relativity. All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity.

---

Wiki on fictitious forcesSo clearly the term "fictional" here is not being used in the way you are assuming it is. Nobody is suggesting that gravitational effects and phenomena don't exist. I haven't read it yet so I don't know. But I think you have demonstrated your own inability to judge the technical content of this popular science book.

Well it would be quite an achievement for us to observe something outisde of time and space........But the fact remains that quantum fluctuation have been observed whilst creator gods haven't.1 - 0 to the fluctuations.

The obvious disparity here is that quantum field theory is one of the most successful scientific theories ever devised. It has demonstrated itself able to make predictions which have led to new discoveries. The ability of QFT to accurately predict experimental results has been described as comparable to determining the distance from Boston to Pasadena to within the thickness of a human hair.What has your "goddidit" hypothesis ever led to the discovery of?If the answer to that is "nothing" why do you think we should even put the two things in the same ballpark of credence?

Would you agree that a theory which results in verifiable predictions and discoveries is superior to a theory which effectively just says "I can explain this by invoking magic"...?Isn't that what is happening here?

I could make numerous objections to your post but I'll restrict myself to one. Saying that the cause of intelligence is an existing intelligence doesn't make sense does it? If intelligence already exists then it is not and cannot be the cause of intelligence.So the question becomes thus - Do complex things like intelligence evolve from simple beginnings or do they just come/exist from nothing prior?All the evidence suggests the former.......

No matter how you phrase it - To claim that intelligence originated when an intelligent creator created intelligence is obviously silly.Either intelligence requires an intelligent creator, in which case it's turtles all the way down, OR intelligence doesn't require an intelligent creator - In which case you don't really have an argument. You really need to read up on the role of entropy in the arrow of time. I have no idea what you mean by "infinite existence"...? First you talk about an infinite existence based on backwards and forwards in our "time line" (to use your phrase) and then say that this creator intelligence doesn't exist in our "time line" and is instead "eternal".This seems contradictory. Fits what? Without wanting to be rude the only thing it seems to fit is some rather confused and contradictory assumptions. I'm saying, for example, that a single celled zygote which grows into an embryo which grows into a fetus which grows into a baby which grows into a conscious, inventive, opinionated and intelligent adult human being is an observed instance of simple -> complex.I'm saying that a similar simple -> complex evolutionary process accounts for the origin of intelligence in living organisms (e.g. humans).And ultimately I am saying that (to use your phrase) "fundamental particles to intelligent life" is similarly simple -> complex process in a way that....... TADAAAA - I'm a super unimaginable-to-your-puny-human-mind intelligence and I just exist....is not.So I'm saying the simple -> complex position is evidenced in a way that the TADAAAA position isn't.

We are. See Message 402 and Message 394Well as competing theories of creation one is evidenced by a theory that has proven it's worth in terms of making accurate and reliable predictions. And the other isn't.So (to put it mildly) one of the possibilities under consideration can be considered superior to the other. Whether true or not what does that have to do with quantum fluctuations in a thread titled - "can science say anything about a creator god?". Because none of the things you list have anything to do with either scientific or god based modes of "creation".

So where exactly are you suggesting this godly intelligence exists? Within the (backwards and forwards) time of our universe that began at T=0?Did god begin at T=0 too......?

Is it still your contention that intelligence originated when an intelligent creator created intelligence?Does intelligence require an intelligent creator? Or not?You spoke at some length (quite possibly wrongly - but that is by the by) about the time reversible nature of our universe - Unless you are suggesting this intelligent creator exists within the time component of our universe (which began at T=0) what relevance does this have?Now you seem to be suggesting to Percy that this intelligent creator exists in an alternate physical universe. But what are you suggesting created the alternate universe in which this intelligence resides?I still don't get where exactly you are suggesting this entity exists - Can you clarify?At the moment it sounds like a god of the gaps where even the gaps are ambiguous...... When we talk about extra dimensions within our universe (string theory and suchlike) we are talking about spatial dimensions which didn't expand in the Big Bang. Are you suggesting god dwells there?

So we have an uncreated intelligence which exists in time in an uncreated universe which has a time dimension with no T=0.Is this correct? Why the qualification of "our universe"? Mystery. Gap. Tomato. Tomahto. That is different to saying that it is inherently empirically imperceptible. If we are going off into wild speculation then there is nothing in the laws of physics which prohibits the creation of wormholes or blackholes as bridges between universes in a multiverse. If this is the case and we combine it with your suggestion then meeting god (or establishing his existence) would be a matter of engineering and technology (type 3 civilisation) rather than spirituality.

So we have an alternate universe with similar but different physical laws to our own universe. Laws which allow eternal existence by virtue of there being no T=0. And residing in that universe we have uncreated intelligent being(s). Beings which are constrained by the physical laws of that universe in a similar fashion to the way we are constrained by the physical laws of our own universe (otherwise why would it matter whether that universe allows eternal existence or not?) It is this/these intelligent being(s) that are responsible for creating our universe. Presumably by utilising the physical laws of their own universe.........Is this all correct? Whenever something is proclaimed to be so mysterious that god should be inserted into it - It is very arguably a god of the gaps argument. A being residing in another physical universe where the physical laws allow for both eternal existence and the ability to create new universes (like ours) which are programmed for intelligence to evolve - Sounds more like advanced alien beings than any notion of an omnipotent god doesn't it? Frankly you have come up with something that sounds like a rival to Scientology rather than a basis for Christianity......

In this thread you have cited (your interpretation of) concepts in modern theoretical physics as compatible of your view that an eternal intelligent being resides in some alternative universe. Things like universes that lack a T=0 and the laws of physics being non-directional in time.But unless the intelligent being you are proposing is constrained by the physical laws that are present in the alternate universe in which it resides why would such a universe need to allow for eternal existence anyway?Is the eternal intelligent being you are proposing constrained by the physical laws of the universe in which it resides? Or not?If it is constrained - I wouldn't call that a god. I'd call it an alien from another universe obeying a different set of physical laws.If it isn't constrained - Why bring up universes whose physical laws allow eternal existence as at all relevant to anything?

The distinction I am making is between a being that is bound by the natural laws of the physical universe in which it exists and a being that is unbounded by any such natural laws.A being that is bound by the natural laws of the universe in which it resides is no more supernatural or godly than you or I. It might be more technologically advanced. But it isn't 'supernatural' and it isn't 'god' if it is constrained by natural laws is it? I don't think Christian understanding of things involves worshiping beings who are no more or less bound by natural physical laws than we are. Albeit different natural laws in a different physical universe. And you have postulated an alternate universe with different laws in which this intelligent being of yours resides. Why is it meaningless? Maybe in the dim and distant future traversing between universes in a multiverse will be commonplace. Similarly creating 'baby universes' may be a possibility. Maybe even creating life.....Check out this link: The universe is destined to end. Before it does, could an advanced civilisation escape via a wormhole into a parallel universe? The idea seems like science fiction, but it is consistent with the laws of physics and biology. Here’s how to do itIf we as a species should ever achieve such things our 'creations' may mistakenly deem us to be gods. But we would know better.....