Science Demonstrates the Existence of God (Provisionally)

_{Barry Arrington

October 24, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

There are two and only two options with respect to the origin of the universe.

1. An infinite regress of dependent existence.

2. The universe was caused by “that beyond which nothing can be reduced,” to use Dr. Roy Clouser’s definition of God.

More familiar terms for these categories are (1) an infinite regress of contingent causes; and (2) one necessary cause.

Science demonstrates that option 1 is false. The universe had a discrete beginning at the event popularly known as the “big bang.”

Since option 1 is false, it follows that option 2 is true.

All scientific conclusions are provisional. Therefore, this proof does not work to demonstrate the existence of God as a logical certainty. It does demonstrate, however, that if the standard model of cosmology is true, it follows from that truth that God exists.

What about Stephen Hawking’s recent proclamation that we can do without God, you might ask. To which I respond that I can imagine a conversation between God and Dr. Hawking that goes something like this:

Hawking: “I can demonstrate that the big bang happened without you.

God: OK; take your best shot.

Hawking: “Because we have gravity . . .

God: Wait!

Hawking: What?

God: Get your own gravity.

Comments

tjguy, the points you make are important. I would always caution people not to allow their faith to rest on the latest scientific model. That is why I emphasized the provisional nature of scientific conclusions in the OP.Barry Arrington_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

rhampton7: So while the origin problem is left unanswered, that should not be mistaken as proof or evidence for said origin. No, it is the "cause problem" you have left unanswered. The universe has an origin as proven and evidenced by the "Big Bang". Its origin is not the problem, rather what caused that origin is the unanswered problem. Further, extrapolating our universe’s causality to a supra-universal causality (if such a thing even exists) is an a priori assumption. The universe can not cause itself and since it irrefutably had an origin its cause must of necessity be a supra-universal cause. Every effect has its cause (that is not extrapolation, that is consequent antecedence), hence whatever caused the universe's origin is by definition supra-universal. There is only one a priori assumption, and it must be admitted by everyone, which is the origin (however caused) begins from literally nothing, because the evidence of the Big Bang is that everything came into existence with it, nothing existed before it: not matter, energy, time, space, not even dimensions preceeded it. While conceivable that the "laws of nature" were always implicit, such laws were regardless uninstantiated without any "nature" to regulate, but then laws per se are immaterial as it is only their regulatory effects upon nature that manifest materially. Barry's paraphrased joke is very apropos: assume (a priori) that nothing exists and then cause an origin therefrom, a constraint that Hawking overlooked. Even assuming a law of gravity, without space-time or matter, gravity is without effect. Hawking illogically assumed, a priori, that the law of gravity was creative; that the law of gravity somehow simultaneously created infinite density mass within infinitessimal space-time.Charles_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

"It does demonstrate, however, that if the standard model of cosmology is true, it follows from that truth that God exists." Don't you think the universe could have had a beginning even if the Big Bang is not true? I mean, even if the standard model of cosmology is NOT true, we still "know" the universe had a beginning. Science still points to a beginning and, even more importantly, God's Word makes it clear that there was a beginning. There are Big Bang doubters out there and they are not all creationists. There are many secular doubters as well. The Big Bang explains some things, but not others. It still doesn't really work scientifically without lots of fudge factors, which is why there are so many versions of the Big Bang out there. The Big Bang is simply the best guess we humans have right now, when we leave God out of the picture. We were not there to see it happen so lots of interpretation is involved in coming up with this theory so chances are it is wrong. Even though it is outside the realm of science, creation ex-nihilo would also shows that there is a beginning to the universe, would it not? Another important question here is how do we know anything? Is science the only reliable means we have of "knowing" things? No, especially when it comes to the distand unobservable past. In fact, this type of science is probably not very reliable. Even this writer admitted that all scientific conclusions are provisional. Science is not really the way to knowledge. This is where we need to come back to the true foundation for truth. Jesus said "Thy Word is truth." This is the most reliable way we have of knowing anything. If there is no God, truth doesn't really even matter!tjguy_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Towards the latter part of this video, Dr. Hugh Ross speaks a little about our very unique, indeed 'privileged', position of observation within space-time, as well as speaking a little about some very provocative implications from the 'folding up' of space time: Hugh Ross on CBN: Hidden Treasures in The Book of Job - video http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.aspx?s=/mp4/HughRoss_101911v2_WSbornagain77_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

Querius, this may interest you:
Virtual Particles, & Special Relativity - Michael Strauss PhD. Particle Physics - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4554674
bornagain77_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

Querius: Very true. I have often wondered if the concept of quantum vacuum is only a modern way to reintroduce the concept of a transcendent God.gpuccio_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT}

Gravity, quantum effects, dark matter, dark energy, probabilities of brightly colored machine tools spontaneously flashing into existence, black holes, event horizons, radiation, plasma, atomic orbitals, space quantization within the atom, the double-slit experiment, you name it . . . all occur in that roiling soup that's misnamed "empty" space. Without the creation of the "fabric of space," none of this is possible or relevant. There are no quantum effects possible in something that doesn't exist. For example, there are no quantum effects in or caused by phlogiston, aether, or chicken lips. And something that doesn't exist cannot create itself through its own non-existent power. Naturally, someone is bound to say, "Yeah, but what about universes outside our own?" Really, and where do they come from? "From other universes outside them as well." And now we're back to infinite regressions.Querius_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

"Get your own gravity!" LOL. I believe in a a Great Architect because I think scientifically speaking it is the soundest hypothesis. It is either that or you end up with something ridiculous like "spacetime did not exist at the origin of the universe, therefore the speak of causes is meaningless." Is science's best answer that our universe exists "just because" ? Because that is what it comes down to if there is no Designer. That or an infinite regress. Or we could just posit a single infinite entity... And call it God.ThoughtSpark_{October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

Actually we do have abundant evidence of non-local, beyond space-time, matter-energy, causation from quantum mechanics. 1. John Wheeler's Delayed choice
Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm
2. Alain Aspect's refutation of Einstein's postulated hidden variables;
Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145
3. Anton Zeilinger's recent establishment of the fact that mass-energy is not 'locally' sustaining, but must have non-local cause to explain its continued existence within space-time;
'Quantum Magic' Without Any 'Spooky Action at a Distance' - June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. Their findings were published in the latest issue of the journal Nature. Asher Peres, a pioneer of quantum information theory, once remarked jokingly in a letter to a colleague (Dagmar Bruß): Entanglement is a trick 'quantum magicians' use to produce phenomena that cannot be imitated by 'classical magicians'. When two particles are entangled, measurements performed on one of them immediately affect the other, no matter how far apart the particles are. What if, in an experiment, one considers a system that does not allow for entanglement? Will the quantum magicians still have an advantage over the classical magicians? Quantum physics beyond magic This is the question the team of quantum physicists led by Anton Zeilinger from the Faculty of Physics at the University of Vienna and from the IQOQI of the Austrian Academy of Sciences addressed in their experiment. The physicists used a "qutrit" -- a quantum system consisting of a single photon that can assume three distinguishable states. "We were able to demonstrate experimentally that quantum mechanical measurements cannot be interpreted in a classical way even when no entanglement is involved," Radek Lapkiewicz explains. The findings relate to the theoretical predictions by John Stewart Bell, Simon B. Kochen, and Ernst Specker. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm
Moreover we even have experimental evidence that none of the preceding experiments will ever be overturned:
An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory - May 2011 Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this (quantum theory). http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0133
===============
Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
Music and verse:
ROYAL TAILOR - HOLD ME TOGETHER http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpJ2FeeJgw Revelation 4:11 "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
bornagain77_{October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

No, it's not an a priori assumption. As Charles implied, it's the only conclusion that avoids an infinite regression of causes.Querius_{October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

The Kalam argues the existence of God, the result of which is nature as we experience it. Although Occam would argue that you need only one God, whether Deity is singular, multi-faceted, or multiple cannot be discovered, only revealed by Diety, which many believe has been done. An independent, multi-directional, two-dimensional closed manifold of time is fanciful, but wildly speculative along the lines of elephants standing on the back of a giant celestial turtle. How could anyone, even Hawking, measure the passage of time without invoking space and mass-energy? It doesn't work. Finally, I did not say anything about "our universe's version of nothingness" nor whether it's known or unknown. Nothing is simply non-existence. And non-existence has no laws, no information, and no potential for anything. As such, it can be understood perfectly. It is not unknown.Querius_{October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

True, but we can not conduct experiments nor collect data from outside our universe. So while the origin problem is left unanswered, that should not be mistaken as proof or evidence for said origin. Further, extrapolating our universe's causality to a supra-universal causality (if such a thing even exists) is an a priori assumption.rhampton7_{October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

God: Get your own gravity. [offstage: drum riff and ... rim shot] But seriously folks, any explanation for the origins of the universe must begin ex nihilo, otherwise it simply begs the question of how any presumed initial conditions were established. To presume either forces, energy, time, space, dimensions, or even a vaccum merely shifts the problem to how those originated.Charles_{October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

It can not be disproved that multiple Gods co-exist, and thus are responsible for our reality. Nor can it be disproved that the big bang is not a definitive end-point but rather a location on a sphere of time (to use Hawking's anology) - a topology without beginning or end. Eternal. Like God, a self-referential paradox to the human mind. And as Querius mentioned what is or is not possible in a nothing of true nothingness is unknown. Our universe's version of nothingness may lead us to incorrect assumptions. Lastly, there is the concept of unknown unknowns. By categorically stating that there are only two possibilities, you have essentially claimed that all unknowns about existence outside our universe are known, and that is strictly a matter of philosophical opinion.rhampton7_{October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

One problem that many people have with understanding the Kalam, is that "nothing" is not the same as empty space. There are no "Laws of Nothing." Many people also have trouble understanding that time does not exist when there is nothing. There are no billions of years and no events for probability to function. Also, pantheists don't realize that by definition, their god must have had a beginning, and thus their god was created by mine. ;-)Querius_{October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Here is a video playlist, of 57 videos, of William Lane Craig defending the Kalam cosmological argument against the many various attempted refutations of it:
Dr. William Lane Craig defends the Kalam Cosmological argument for the existence of God against various attempted refutations - video playlist http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=916E17EE70E98A68
Further notes and quotes:
The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE “,,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.” Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ ,,, 'And if your curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video "The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude." Prof. Henry F. Schaefer - Hugh Ross PhD. - Evidence For The Transcendent Origin Of The Universe - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347185 The Scientific Evidence For The Big Bang - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323668 Beyond The Big Bang: William Lane Craig Templeton Foundation Lecture (HQ) 1/6 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esqGaLSWgNc Evidence For the Existence of God - William Lane Craig - video lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hW3ceQYxic Formal Proof For The Transcendent Origin Of the Universe - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4170233 "The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science." - William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115 Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete - Borde-Guth-Vilenkin - 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176 "The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation is impossible without a beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - from pg. 35 'New Proofs for the Existence of God' by Robert J. Spitzer (of note: A elegant thought experiment of a space traveler traveling to another galaxy, that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, used to illustrate the validity of the proof, is on pg. 35 of the book as well.) "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970
Verse and music:
Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. Carrie Underwood with Vince Gill How Great thou Art - 720P HD - Standing Ovation! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLLMzr3PFgk
bornagain77_{October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

As a mere layman, I frequently like to befuddle myself with speculations about origins. I believe it was Stephen Hawking who asked, "Why does the Universe bother to exist?" I had come up with a similar two-part question. Why is there anything at all? What would there be if there were nothing? I have trouble with that because my mind wants to envision "physical space" with nothing in it. Yet when I read about the Big Bang and learn that "space" did not exist outside the Big Bang but was contained within it as the new universe expanded, I become even more befuddled. Then there is the Kalam Comological Argument. What begins to exist has to have a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Of course, the naive question is what caused the cause... and this leads to the infinite regress. That leaves us with an uncaused first cause, an entity that has to exist beyond time and space, since time and space did not come into existence until after the Big Bang. I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that the uncaused first cause - God - exists (if that word even has meaning in this context) beyond time and space. I hope you will forgive the ramblings of a layman, but can anyone truly understand "ultimate reality?"NeilBJ_{October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply