Science and the God thing-a-ma-jig

The place for any Religious and/or Philosophical discussions, treatise, absolutions, ramblings, Aliens, UFO's, space exploration, mystical bullshit, astronomy, astrology, etc...
Post Reply
User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18962
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: Canada

Science and the God thing-a-ma-jig

Post: # 121371Post Egaladeist
Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:01 pm

I'll start by quoting references...then finish by quoting conclusions...and people can follow the link to read the body...

Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God?

References
Walter L. Bradley received his B.S. in Engineering Science and his Ph.D. in Materials Science from the University of Texas in Austin. Married in 1965, he lives in College Station, Texas with his wife, Ann. He taught as an Assistant and Associate Professor of Metallurgical Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines before assuming a position as Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M University (TAMU) in 1976. Dr. Bradley, also served as Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M University and as Director of the Polymer Technology Center at TAMU. He currently serves as Distinquished Professor of Engineering at Baylor University.
Conclusions
A universe that contains a special place of habitation for complex, conscious life is so truly remarkable that it is, realistically speaking, impossible to believe it is the result of a series of cosmic accidents. To choose to believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for (a) the mathematical forms encoded in the laws of nature, (b) the precise specification of the nineteen universal constants and (c) the remarkable initial conditions required for star formation and the simplest living systems is to believe in a miracle by another name. Physicist Freeman J. Dyson of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study seems to implicitly affirm theism when he say,

"As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming."
Physicist and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias, contemplating our enigmatic universe, observes:

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.
It is easy to understand why many scientists like Sir Fred Hoyle changed their minds in the past thirty years. They now agree that the universe, as we know it, cannot reasonably be explained as a cosmic accident. Frederic B. Burnham, a well-known historian of science appearing on ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel, confirmed the current openness to the intelligent design model with his comment,

"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years."
The design requirements for our universe are like a chain of 1000 links. If any link breaks, we do not have a less optimal universe for life -- we have a universe incapable of sustaining life! The evidence I have present is daunting, but still short of "proof". I must conclude that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in an accidental universe than to believe in an intelligent creator, or God who crafted such a marvelous universe and beautiful place of habitation in planet Earth, and then created life (including human beings) to occupy it.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

References
Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia.
Conclusions
Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.

These are two very popular views, which brings us to something very significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a popular view) and God is not con-tained within the universe (another popular view).
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

Disclaimer: This is from a christian university website so it obviously has leanings in that direction...however the information and references quoted by them seem sound. Nor should any of this be construed as a position I agree with...or don't agree with. :P


www.thetazzone.com www.thegameszone.org

User avatar
Harbinger
Aspiring Anti-Christ
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 am
Location: University X

Re: Science and the God thing-a-ma-jig

Post: # 121676Post Harbinger
Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:21 am

impossible to believe it is the result of a series of cosmic accidents.
You lost me right there.

This in itself is inherently backwards, as you reach your conclusion before you know all the parameters and all results. To state this as fact is to comprehend all. To not comprehend all and state this as fact is not scientific, but a leap of faith.

Credibility gone. I shall read no more.
"I am never wrong. I thought I was once, but I was mistaken."

User avatar
SirDice
I've posted HOW many
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:59 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: Netherlands

Re: Science and the God thing-a-ma-jig

Post: # 121688Post SirDice
Mon Oct 20, 2008 1:28 pm

"Impossible to believe" is a sure sign of narrow mindedness.. Impossible to believe doesn't mean that it's impossible in reality. Just his narrow mindedness that refuses to see the big picture.
The design requirements for our universe are like a chain of 1000 links. If any link breaks, we do not have a less optimal universe for life -- we have a universe incapable of sustaining life!
BS.. It's all about statistical probability.. With millions of failures there's bound to be one that gets it right..
Oliver's Law:
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

User avatar
James
I do stuff
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:39 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Science and the God thing-a-ma-jig

Post: # 122322Post James
Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:22 pm

"Impossible to believe" is a sure sign of narrow mindedness.. Impossible to believe doesn't mean that it's impossible in reality. Just his narrow mindedness that refuses to see the big picture.
I agree. While I'm one who has a firm faith in God, I have issues with the Intelligent Design movement. If you have to be narrow minded to believe in God, then there's something fundamentally wrong, I suspect. My open-mindedness has not by any means eliminated my own belief, but has made me think it through very critically and actually better understand it.

In my opinion, science alone will never prove God. They're running off in the wrong direction.
aka AO's AngelicKnight
The forums are finally back!
http://www.jameswebsite.net

User avatar
Harbinger
Aspiring Anti-Christ
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 am
Location: University X

Re: Science and the God thing-a-ma-jig

Post: # 122340Post Harbinger
Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:53 am

James wrote:
"Impossible to believe" is a sure sign of narrow mindedness.. Impossible to believe doesn't mean that it's impossible in reality. Just his narrow mindedness that refuses to see the big picture.
I agree. While I'm one who has a firm faith in God, I have issues with the Intelligent Design movement. If you have to be narrow minded to believe in God, then there's something fundamentally wrong, I suspect. My open-mindedness has not by any means eliminated my own belief, but has made me think it through very critically and actually better understand it.

In my opinion, science alone will never prove God. They're running off in the wrong direction.
The whole problem is the acceptance of something before it is discovered or validated. That could be contested, but the fact that none of it can be tested nor reproduced disallows scientific analysis.

If I were to hypothesize that Fraggles exist, I would have to go about proving that hypothesis and changing it until I either concluded that they don't exist or accept without proof that they do. Thus is God, thus is the fallacy.
"I am never wrong. I thought I was once, but I was mistaken."

Post Reply