Fundamental forces of nature and the case for a God

[OnlyAmbrose]

I've been thinking about this and I still don't see why the laws of physics would need a reason for being and why it's supposed to be a leap of faith to say they don't.

Because everything else does have a reason. Everything, from areas in psychology to biology to the meteorology, has a reason. Except the basic principles on which they were founded. It just strikes me as somewhat odd, and worthy of further thought.

[CrazyAnglican]

although I have been arguing more towards the non-existance of God, I do think that the whole thing about "how has god always been there" and "where did he come from" is a non-existant argument.

If you assume that god created the universe, then by definition he would exist outside of our space/time continuum (his creation).

I hope you understand what I mean... i can't really find the words to explain it more than that. other than it is a not existant issue, because time does not exist.

If I follow you (and I probably don't), C.S. Lewis likened it to an author and his book. The author can flip back and forth through the pages, make changes, etc. He is not in any way subject to the time (plot line) of his creation.

[MeDeFe]

I've been thinking about this and I still don't see why the laws of physics would need a reason for being and why it's supposed to be a leap of faith to say they don't.

Because everything else does have a reason. Everything, from areas in psychology to biology to the meteorology, has a reason. Except the basic principles on which they were founded. It just strikes me as somewhat odd, and worthy of further thought.

This of course leads to the question what the reason for their reason might be.
I really don't find it hard to see basic physical laws as "built in", as basic parts or properties of the material world that simply exist, if they didn't or if they were different we wouldn't know the difference.

[Neoteny]

So in essence I'm not trying to prove that there is a God, I'm trying to prove that it is not unreasonable to believe in one, or at the very least acknowledge the distinct philosophical possibility that there could be one.

You're absolutely right. To expand it to more ambivalent language, with a Universe of the size we have it now and all of the billions upon billions of stars there is a possibility that behind it all is some form or another of God.

Personally, I see a minor flaw in your argument (I say personally because it seems to be a flaw when I place it against my own personal philosophical conclusions). I've always found the question "Why?" to be somewhat of a nonsensical one when applied to science. It assumes a motivation behind the fundamental forces at work. I've never found it necessary for science to answer the "Why?" question. Science's job is to answer the various "Hows, Wheres, and Whens" questions. The question "Why?" should be answered by theologians and philosophers. It is not something scientists should concern themselves with simply because it's not their field.

I don't infer God into those questions because God isn't an answer. God is an identity to something transcendent that humankind has never been able to fully define. It's the interconnectedness we feel toward other human beings. What Jung called the collective unconscious, the strange link that we feel as a species that holds all of the total sum of human knowledge.

Theologians and philosophers are no better well-equipped to handle why questions than scientists are. The last person I'd want to answer any question I have is a theologian.

[unriggable]

Ambrose you don't need a reason for stuff to exist. Even if God exists and made all this shit, you'd have to deduce: why is he there? And then you're back to where you started.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Ambrose you don't need a reason for stuff to exist. Even if God exists and made all this shit, you'd have to deduce: why is he there? And then you're back to where you started.

I've already said that. The basic point was that something exists which had no purpose or cause for its existence.

Maybe it just sits best in my mind that whatever that effect-without-a-cause which caused all other things is sentient. It just seems to fit better in my mind that if there is an origin to all things which defies human logic, it can probably think. The idea that existence is a result of some law which just exists just because doesn't click. That's just my own personal speculation, and certainly not part of my argument. I'll think more about it when I have time, but I just wanted to get as far as "Science can't explain everything" and "there exists something with no cause."

[Guiscard]

Ambrose you don't need a reason for stuff to exist. Even if God exists and made all this shit, you'd have to deduce: why is he there? And then you're back to where you started.

I've already said that. The basic point was that something exists which had no purpose or cause for its existence.

Maybe it just sits best in my mind that whatever that effect-without-a-cause which caused all other things is sentient. It just seems to fit better in my mind that if there is an origin to all things which defies human logic, it can probably think. The idea that existence is a result of some law which just exists just because doesn't click. That's just my own personal speculation, and certainly not part of my argument. I'll think more about it when I have time, but I just wanted to get as far as "Science can't explain everything" and "there exists something with no cause."

Yes but God exists 'just because'... He wasn't created

[Neoteny]

Ambrose you don't need a reason for stuff to exist. Even if God exists and made all this shit, you'd have to deduce: why is he there? And then you're back to where you started.

I've already said that. The basic point was that something exists which had no purpose or cause for its existence.

Maybe it just sits best in my mind that whatever that effect-without-a-cause which caused all other things is sentient. It just seems to fit better in my mind that if there is an origin to all things which defies human logic, it can probably think. The idea that existence is a result of some law which just exists just because doesn't click. That's just my own personal speculation, and certainly not part of my argument. I'll think more about it when I have time, but I just wanted to get as far as "Science can't explain everything" and "there exists something with no cause."

Basically, the debate comes down to the following: which is eternal? God or the universe? Since we can observe the universe, it is easy to say that it exists, and we can postulate that it has either always existed, or had a finite starting point in and of itself. I am in the first camp, but the second camp is more likely to be true than any god hypothesis. People who believe in god make things more complicated by throwing in a complex sentient being that we can't see in front of something that we can already see. Additionally, the idea that we can't see it somehow puts it above and beyond what we are capable of, yet at the same time, we attribute common anthropomorphic qualities to the deity that causes the entire system to tailspin into absurdity. There is no reason to call the eternal god; at least, not in relation to the "uncaused cause." We will be much better off, and probably less confused, by calling it the universe. Or existence. Or Ralph. Or Neoteny.

[Backglass]

A discussion in the "Logic dictates" thread got me thinking some, and I'd like to see how my new theory fares now. So here's where I'm going with this.

I mentioned earlier that there are somethings that science cannot, and probably will never be able to, explain. These things are the basic fundamental laws of science. Obviously, it's circular logic to try to prove the foundation of your belief based on the beliefs you get from that foundation. Think how annoying it is when Christians try to prove that there is a God using the argument that the Bible says so.

Anywho, the basic point of this is that science cannot prove everything. In short, it cannot prove itself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing science. I believe that science is important and to be encouraged. My point is that there is something BEYOND science.

Why MUST there be something beyond Science? Simply because we do not yet understand it yet?

So check this. There are four basic fundamental forces of nature. We'll take gravity as an example because it's the most easily understood. Everyone knows that mass attracts other mass. But no one knows why.

Correct. Yet.

Universal gravitation is a basic fundamental law which cannot be proven using other laws. Science fails to explain why gravity happens. But of course, we know through empirical evidence that it does happen, and that the force of gravity is directly proportional to the mass of the two objects and varies inversely with the square of the distance between them. But we don't know why.

Correct. Yet.

In effect, gravity occurs for no reason. None whatsoever. It just occurs.

Yes..because we do not understand it. Yet.

So here's where I'm bringing God in. Yeah, I know what you're going to say. "There you go, bringing in God when you can't explain something."

Pretty much, yeah.

This is a different case. This is the very basis of all science. It cannot and will never be able to be explained scientifically, and even if it WAS eventually explained scientifically, it would be using yet another law which has no basis aside from empirical observation. Even if it's not gravity, you're going to ultimately get down to a fundamental law which has no reason for existing.

How can you be so sure? Can you tell the future? Again...why MUST there be a reason for gravity existing? Why does anything exist? Why do black holes exist? Why does Helium exist? Why do extra large spandex body suits exist? I would bet that thousands of years ago people said "We cannot and will not ever fully understand the weather, as it comes from gods hands".

I will never understand the christian rationale that if it is something we do not understand, then <STOP!>. It MUST have come from a magical god!

Only because you cannot see otherwise.

So here, science fails. It's not just that we don't know yet, it's just that science straight up fails.

Only because in your mind you have already committed it to failure.

This is something it cannot explain. This isn't like the moon and the sun which could eventually be explained by science, this is the very foundation of science itself.

Correct. Yet.

So here's where we stand. Either:

a) these laws for the universe exist for no reason whatsoever, and bfor no reason these laws with no reason at all resulted in sentient life. Talk about a slim chance. Out of all the laws that could have existed for no reason, the laws with no reason we got resulted in life. For no reason.

or

b) there is an all-powerful sentience who exists for no reason (god), who created these laws with the specific intent of sentient life coming into fruition.

B makes the most sense to me.

Of course it does. It fits your belief system.

I propose:

c) These laws and phenomena we do not yet fully understand and as Science and Mankind grow and mature, we will understand more and more about them. Nuclear power plants were IMPOSSIBLE and UNTHINKABLE a few short centuries ago. "We will NEVER tame the atom...it is playing with god", etc. Atom? Whats an atom? And your going to SPLIT THEM APART?! IMPOSSIBLE I SAY!!!


There is no reason...and there does not HAVE TO BE a reason unless you have a god to prove.

[unriggable]

Here's the thing. The laws of the universe are that way.

Don't argue about what they could be, because they won't be. They just are.

It's not like the laws of the universe were decided upon, or at any given time they didn't exist. No, they just are, always will be, always have been. So why ask 'how did they come to be this way'? They just are that way.

Why would a god look for life anyways? When you think about it, why would this god pay any special attention to our little planet when there are countless other stars, literally, for another earth to form?

[comic boy]

Here's the thing. The laws of the universe are that way.

Don't argue about what they could be, because they won't be. They just are.

It's not like the laws of the universe were decided upon, or at any given time they didn't exist. No, they just are, always will be, always have been. So why ask 'how did they come to be this way'? They just are that way.

Why would a god look for life anyways? When you think about it, why would this god pay any special attention to our little planet when there are countless other stars, literally, for another earth to form?

Perhaps he knew that the human inhabitants of earth would become immensely gullible

[OnlyAmbrose]

To Stopper's entire post:

Science will never be able to explain its fundamental principles because said fundamental principles are what science is based on, hence the word "fundamental". Once again, the idea that science can prove its own fundamental principles is like saying that the Bible can prove Christianity.

[Guiscard]

To Stopper's entire post:

Science will never be able to explain its fundamental principles because said fundamental principles are what science is based on, hence the word "fundamental". Once again, the idea that science can prove its own fundamental principles is like saying that the Bible can prove Christianity.

Exaclty. The four forces just 'are'. God just 'is'. Science tells us one, religion tells us another. Care to enlighten me as to where the difference lies?

[WidowMakers]

Why MUST there be something beyond Science? Simply because we do not yet understand it yet?

Because since can't tell us everything. And why should we assume there is nothing science can't tell us?

I have a couple questions for everyone. Please respond to them and then comment below.

1) Do you only believe what science can tell you (or "prove" to you)?

2) Do you believe there is anything beyond the natural universe (supernatural powers/being)?

3) If you answered No to #2, how can you be sure?

4) Will man eventually be able to understand everything in the natural universe?

5) If answered yes to #4, how can you know that?

6) Can science test/prove anything beyond the natural world?

7) If you answered yes to #6, please explain.

8) If science cannot test beyond our natural world, how can you say nothing supernatural exists?

EDIT: New question
9) If evolution (Big Bang => formation of stars/palnets => early chemicals => early life => millions of years => humans) was disproved by science, would you then believe in a supernatural power or being?

[Frigidus]

1) Do you only believe what science can tell you (or "prove" to you)?

2) Do you believe there is anything beyond the natural universe (supernatural powers/being)?

3) If you answered No to #2, how can you be sure?

4) Will man eventually be able to understand everything in the natural universe?

5) If answered yes to #4, how can you know that?

6) Can science test/prove anything beyond the natural world?

7) If you answered yes to #6, please explain.

8) If science cannot test beyond our natural world, how can you say nothing supernatural exists?

1) To an extent, yes. Anything that can't be scientifically tested can not be given an absolute yes or no. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate anything outside of the scientific field.

2) No. I could say more, but I'll save it for #3.

3) Oh, I'm not sure. But until I see evidence for (or against, I suppose) the idea of such a being I'll save my judgement. As mentioned earlier, no evidence means no decision either way. Since the proposed theory is that a supernatural being exists you can only not believe in one until more evidence is put on the table. I'm stating it in a confusing way, if you need clarification Neotony explained it much better in the "Why do you believe" thread.

4) Probably not. I forget where I heard this, but as technology advances humanity seems to know less and less about more and more.

5) Didn't say yes.

6) Nope.

7) Said no.

8) I can't, but it's even worse to say that you can know it does exist.

I've got to say, answering questionnaires is a lot easier than coming up with your own argument.

[WidowMakers]

I can't, but it's even worse to say that you can know it does exist.[/list]

I've got to say, answering questionnaires is a lot easier than coming up with your own argument.

All I was trying to do is show that science cannot disprove the supernatural. And if science cannot explain the natural (how everything started i.e. evolution, which I feel it does not) then what else is there? There are too many issues with how science "explains" and "proves" the naturalistic formation and evolution of our universe. I have been listing these issues and discussing them in the creation / evolution thread. Neoteny has been countering.

But again the main propose for this questionnaire was to show that if science can't prove the way the universe works, then something beyond what science can see if out there.

So I guess I should add a question

9) If evolution was disproved by science, would you then believe in a supernatural power or being.

[comic boy]

WM

Is your answer to everything ' prove it ' or ' how can you be sure ', any chance of changing the tape

[unriggable]

1) Do you only believe what science can tell you (or "prove" to you)?

2) Do you believe there is anything beyond the natural universe (supernatural powers/being)?

3) If you answered No to #2, how can you be sure?

4) Will man eventually be able to understand everything in the natural universe?

5) If answered yes to #4, how can you know that?

6) Can science test/prove anything beyond the natural world?

7) If you answered yes to #6, please explain.

If science cannot test beyond our natural world, how can you say nothing supernatural exists?

EDIT: New question
9) If evolution (Big Bang => formation of stars/palnets => early chemicals => early life => millions of years => humans) was disproved by science, would you then believe in a supernatural power or being?

1. No, because any possibility is out there until it is proven - I choose whichever makes the most sense.
2. No
3. Every major event / series of events has a scientific answer confirmed by physics.
4. No
5. ---
6. No
7. The natural world is the world.
8. Because if we manage to prove that the natural world is a closed system then it would confirm no outside interference and therefore no supernatural.
9. We'll get there when we get there.

[WidowMakers]

WM

Is your answer to everything ' prove it ' or ' how can you be sure ', any chance of changing the tape

Well that is your answer to evolution . You all say that it is true because it has been proven. Well it hasn't been proved. I have been saying and showing how it has not.


All I am asking for is proof of this

Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.

Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.

Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.

Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.

Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter

Biological-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.

If anyone of these steps before biological evolution cannot scientifically be explain or take place, then regardless of what we have "proven" about biological evolution, it simple could not be true.

These are very general topics listed above. But under each there are plenty of scientific and technical issues and impossibilities that do not allow this entire process to be achieved.

Once I get done answering Neoteny in the Evolution /creation thread, I plan on doing an entire rundown of these last several thread (Creation/evolution, Logic dictates and several others). I am going to put it all into Jesus Freaks...Why do you believe.

It will be a start to finish reason on why I have come to the conclusion of what I believe.

WM

P.S. For all of you who might think I hate all science and think it is anti-God or Christian. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just to let you know I love it. Science is great and all of the actual beneficial thing is t has done for humanity cannot be taken for granted. However, I don't feel science can explain our existence and that is why I am still debating the issue.

[Frigidus]

So I guess I should add a question

9) If evolution was disproved by science, would you then believe in a supernatural power or being.

Nope. If evolution was disproved it would not prove a god's existence, it just disproves evolution. The only thing that can prove god is, well , proving god.

[WidowMakers]

So I guess I should add a question

9) If evolution was disproved by science, would you then believe in a supernatural power or being.

Nope. If evolution was disproved it would not prove a god's existence, it just disproves evolution. The only thing that can prove god is, well , proving god.

Then how would you explain everything. If naturalistic evolution is not the reason for our existence , then what is?

WM

[Neutrino]

So I guess I should add a question

9) If evolution was disproved by science, would you then believe in a supernatural power or being.

Nope. If evolution was disproved it would not prove a god's existence, it just disproves evolution. The only thing that can prove god is, well , proving god.

Then how would you explain everything. If naturalistic evolution is not the reason for our existence , then what is?

WM

A different theory. I'm sure there are a few puttering around already and if evolution is disproved it won't be hard for one of them to take it's place.

[Heimdall]

1) Do you only believe what science can tell you (or "prove" to you)?

2) Do you believe there is anything beyond the natural universe (supernatural powers/being)?

3) If you answered No to #2, how can you be sure?

4) Will man eventually be able to understand everything in the natural universe?

5) If answered yes to #4, how can you know that?

6) Can science test/prove anything beyond the natural world?

7) If you answered yes to #6, please explain.

If science cannot test beyond our natural world, how can you say nothing supernatural exists?

EDIT: New question
9) If evolution (Big Bang => formation of stars/palnets => early chemicals => early life => millions of years => humans) was disproved by science, would you then believe in a supernatural power or being?

1. I only believe in what is more probable.

2. No

3. I'm sure i don't believe

4. Maybe, if he doesn't die off beforehand.

5. I'm not sure and no one can be sure.

6. What do you mean by beyond?

7. -

8. Still not sure what you mean by beyond

9. I would believe in the most probable theory available.

[Neutrino]

4) Will man eventually be able to understand everything in the natural universe?

In order to know everything, you will have to violate the Uncertainty Prinicple to a very large extent. Unless humanity's prowess eventually extends to completely rewriting physical laws, this isn't going to happen.

P.S. "Natural Universe"? How can there be an unnatural one?

[MeDeFe]

All I am asking for is proof of this

Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.

Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.

Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.

Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.

Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter

Biological-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.

That's all, is it? You're not going to ask someone to build you a time-machine so you can go back and watch the big bang happen, and then forward to see if the universe will be ripped apart or crunched. Or maybe a device that can convert energy to matter so you can always get a cool beer when you feel like having one?
Here's a hint: Enroll at a university, plan for a lifetime or two of studies and get to work.