God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

[PaulConventionWV]

They are known laws of physics, i.e., they have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. The only way to avoid them is to reject empirical science.

They are technically still theories. A law is something we have never observed not to happen a certain way. The laws of physics (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) is only true until we observe something not doing that. Theories are a bit more complex.

 

[Jamesiv1]

whoa, Mr. Redford. Rather unabashed and prolific champion of Tipler's work, are we?

c'mon.... give it up. I couldn't find many supporters, and none as ardent as you

Go to Church and sing your heart out, comfort and be comforted, feed and be fed, love and be loved, forgive and be forgiven.

You don't need physics to convince you that God exists.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

All that stuff is such a time waste. Absolutely none of it makes an inkling of difference to how humans live their lives.

All these guys should find something worthwhile to do - like feed the homeless or spend time with family and friends.

You can't be serious. You're telling me it makes no difference whether God exists? What if this God has rules?

 

[LexEtLibertas]

But without presupposing God's existence, we have no reason to trust the scientific method by which those laws were discovered, and then confirmed via experiments.

Perhaps the known laws of physics will start to be experimentally disconfirmed tomorrow. In which case they would be shown to not be actual laws of physics. Yet they have been confirmed by every experiment to date. So until such time as they start being experimentally disconfirmed, the only way to avoid them is to reject empirical science.

And actually, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for limited minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional world with self-aware beings in it, see my below resource, particularly the section regarding physicists Profs. Frank J. Tipler and Lawrence M. Krauss's debate, and the section regarding the Turing Church Online Workshop:

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: [email protected] , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ziddu.com/download/22782349/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

 

[LexEtLibertas]

I didn't say that nothing can be said to exist. Nor was it a position of epistemological relativism. Did you read the reason I gave? Your responses look like you didn't.

You most certainly did indeed say that. Erowe1, you said, "Science can't prove exists." That is a verbatim, unaltered, full-sentence, direct quote of you.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The problem with all of this is that even if a god was "proven" to exist, what god is it? No Christian can use this kind of apologetic, because a Christian doesn't aver that "a god" exists, He avers that THE GOD, Yahweh exists (in 3 persons' Father Son and Holy Spirit).

You might as well be "proving" that an alien exists which created us all. Who knows? Nothing about what you've posted here comport with God's revelation in the Bible.

If the "alien" you speak of is omnipotent and omnipresent, then it might as well be God.

The argument for the existence of God and the argument for Christianity are two separate things, but you have to accept one to explore the other. If you accept that God exists and want to find out WHO God is, then there's really no contest. The Bible is the most authentic eyewitness book in history. No other religion tells how the world was made, how the stars were made, etc. No other religion has such a detailed account of the events of history. It's rather easy to distinguish Christianity from other religions if you really are curious.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Whether or not God exists is purely belief (some call it faith). Maybe it's just me but in my humble opinion all that quantum, omega, blah blah theory stuff is a total mind-*uck and waste of time.

I would encourage all the folks that indulge in this kind of nonsense to go experience God for themselves. That's time well-spent.

How can you tell people to go experience God if it doesn't matter whether God exists or not?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

you and I are not going to get along very well with an attitude like that.
whether or not "God" exists has no bearing on my morals. there are still things that need done. personally, I do not try to pigeonhole god.

the simple fact is. we humans do not even understand gravity, much less "matter" did that sink in?

It has every bearing on your morals. If God doesn't exist, then there's no reason to have morals. You can have them, but what's the point if you will never face ultimate judgment for any of it? If you think the only punishment that will ever affect you is mortal punishment, then it's just a subjective value judgment of whether you value satisfying your urges more than you value life, which we know to be true for some people. Your assertion that it has no bearing on your life because there are "things that need done" is just avoiding the question altogether and trying to block out existential questions by focusing on the here and now. But you can't avoid it forever because the whole reason anything "needs" to get done is because we believe there is really a purpose to what we do.

 

[HVACTech]

You don't need physics to convince you that God exists.

Thank you! that is exactly the way that I feel about it!

as A Deist, my own personal position is that you are not supposed to know the answer. what would be the challenge to that?
I learn a great deal here reading these ardent posts and it helps me to have a greater understanding and awareness.
I am grateful for that.
it is not my intent to be disrespectful of another's beliefs.

 

[otherone]

You most certainly did indeed say that. Erowe1, you said, "Science can't prove exists." That is a verbatim, unaltered, full-sentence, direct quote of you.

There's a difference between "said to" and "proven to". If you don't know it, I'm sure erowe1 will have no difficulty inviting you down his gigantic "fallacy of induction" rabbit hole.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I wonder, if you so abhor existential questions, then why are you on this thread? Are you trying to convert us all to the church of "here and now" and get us all to stop pondering the questions that make up the very core of our existence?

 

[erowe1]

Perhaps the known laws of physics will start to be experimentally disconfirmed tomorrow.

To believe that experimentation could confirm or disconfirm the laws of physics is to presuppose the scientific method, which was born out of theism.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It doesn't. It presupposes the existence of an external, non-supernatural reality that we can observe.

How can you trust your own reasoning or, indeed, your observations if you must rely on your own reasoning to prove that your reasoning, and therefore everything you observe, is valid?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You most certainly did indeed say that. Erowe1, you said, "Science can't prove exists." That is a verbatim, unaltered, full-sentence, direct quote of you.

You don't see the difference between those two sentences? You substituted a word there. What word was that?

 

[erowe1]

There's a difference between "said to" and "proven to". If you don't know it, I'm sure erowe1 will have no difficulty inviting you down his gigantic "fallacy of induction" rabbit hole.

I don't think I've ever said anything about the fallacy of induction. That's more of a bug in SF's bonnet, and I think I have a more optimistic view of science than he does. But I wouldn't be able to justify this optimism if it weren't for my theism.

 

[erowe1]

You most certainly did indeed say that. Erowe1, you said, "Science can't prove exists." That is a verbatim, unaltered, full-sentence, direct quote of you.

I did say that. It was a typo. I meant to put the word "God" in there.

But even at that, like others pointed out, that wouldn't have been the same thing as saying that nothing could be said to exist.

 

[HVACTech]

I wonder, if you so abhor existential questions, then why are you on this thread? Are you trying to convert us all to the church of "here and now" and get us all to stop pondering the questions that make up the very core of our existence?

I simply do not understand where you got that idea...
that I know of.. or perhaps intended. I was simply pointing out the gaping holes in the OP's thesis.

yes, I did try to clarify my own viewpoint. my intent there was to not be seen as a protagonist.

 

[LexEtLibertas]

There's a difference between "said to" and "proven to". If you don't know it, I'm sure erowe1 will have no difficulty inviting you down his gigantic "fallacy of induction" rabbit hole.

Hi, Otherone. Erowe1 admits that saying "Science can't prove exists" was a typographical error on his part. My criticisms of that highly irrational statement are perfectly veridical, however. When I wrote "can be said to exist" I was not saying that a person could not speak the words, but rather that nothing could be truly known to exist, i.e., nothing could be proven to exist. Which as I demonstrated, is completely false.

You don't see the difference between those two sentences? You substituted a word there. What word was that?

Hi, PaulConventionWV. Erowe1 said, "Science can't prove exists." That is a verbatim, unaltered, full-sentence, direct quote of him.

I did say that. It was a typo. I meant to put the word "God" in there.

But even at that, like others pointed out, that wouldn't have been the same thing as saying that nothing could be said to exist.

Erowe1, you said, "Science can't prove exists." "Science" just means "knowledge". If one cannot have proven knowledge of anything existing, then one cannot have proven knowledge of any truth existing. Regarding your last false sentence above, see my previous reply to Otherone.

However, I am glad to hear that that is not your actual position, but that it was a typographical error on your part.

 

[HVACTech]

"my diplomacy dike groans"

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Hi, PaulConventionWV. Erowe1 said, "Science can't prove exists." That is a verbatim, unaltered, full-sentence, direct quote of him.

Hi. I know what he said, but what he said is not the same thing as nothing can be said to exist. I think that definition of science is misleading. It does not apply to knowledge of the non-material universe, therefore it cannot be absolute knowledge. Science, as I believe erowe1 was referring to it as, is a system by which we observe and analyze the material world, but it is limited in its scope, so there is definitely a difference between "science can't prove anything exists" and "nothing can be said to exist." They're two fundamentally different sentences.