Only educated atheists, Modern Astrophysics has proven the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt.?
Modern Astrophysics has proven the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt.
Newton's Third Law of Motion states "For every action there is equal and opposite reaction." Every action in the universe was caused by a prior equal and opposite reaction.
If we logically follow each and every action and reaction back to the beginning then logically there has to be a first action without a prior equal and opposite reaction. Modern astrophysicists call this event the Big Bang.
This first action was completely independent of outside forces. This action was God, the un-caused cause, creating the universe. This proof also fulfills the principle of Occam's Razor.
By the way, it was Georges Lemaître (1894–1966), a Belgian Catholic priest and professor of physics and astronomy, who proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lem…
A universe in which life has a chance to exist can only happen in where a couple of dozen universal constants coincide, including:
* Minimum interval of space
* Minimum unit of time
* Planck's Constant
* Maximum velocity
* Gravitational Attraction Constant
* Weak Force Coupling Constant
* Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant
* Rest Mass of a Proton
* Rest Mass of an Electron
* Electron or Proton Unit Charge
* Minimum Mass of the Universe
* Total Visible Rest Mass
* Boltzmann's Constant
* Hubble Constant
* Cosmological Constant
* Cosmic Proton/Photon Ratio
* Permittivity of Free Space
* Electromagnetic Fine-Structure Constant
* Weak Fine-Structure Constant
* Gravitational Fine-Structure Constant
A couple of percent difference in any one of these constants would make the universe completely uninhabitable. Roger Penrose, a peer of Hawking, calculated that the chance of a universe capable of supporting life as we know it as one part in 10 raised to the power of 10 raised to the power of 123.
This fine tuning of the universe, while not an absolute proof of God, can be used to help prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt (which is my claim).
I also suggest you read Robert Spitzer's new book "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy"
- 7 years agoBest Answer
so, which god do you think it proves, and why?
- HarknessLv 77 years ago
"If we logically follow each and every action and reaction back to the beginning then logically there has to be a first action without a prior equal and opposite reaction. "
-- No, that's not true. Logically the sequence would extend back in time indefinitely. There is no logical reason to make up something that started the sequence. Experimentally Newton's theory breaks down at the quantum mechanical level.
"Modern astrophysicists call this event the Big Bang."
-- Wrong. Modern astrophysicists accept that the Big Bang started the universe because of physical evidence. "Logic" has nothing to do with it.
"This first action was completely independent of outside forces."
-- So you claim but where is the physical evidence of some independent action that created the universe? All you have a hypothesis.
"This action was God, the un-caused cause, creating the universe."
--Or quantum mechanics, or string theory, or something else entirely. You have no proof this hypothesis is correct.
"This proof also fulfills the principle of Occam's Razor."
--Occam's Razor is irrelevant. Occam's Razor is an idea of how to think about competing explanations, but it proves nothing.
Your first argument fails. As to the second, your argument is false. Roger Penrose apparently proved that there is a chance to create the universe we live in by natural laws alone. Since it's possible, there is no reason to bring in god. Penrose's work actually destroys your conclusion since it proves that the creation of the universe was not a miracle, thus no reason to suppose a god was necessary.
Your arguments don't even suggest a god, much less prove one beyond a reasonable doubt.
- green meklarLv 77 years ago
>If we logically follow each and every action and reaction back to the beginning then logically there has to be a first action without a prior equal and opposite reaction. Modern astrophysicists call this event the Big Bang.
You are conflating two very different senses of the word 'action' here. There is nothing in the Big Bang that violated newtonian dynamics.
>A universe in which life has a chance to exist can only happen in where a couple of dozen universal constants coincide
>A couple of percent difference in any one of these constants would make the universe completely uninhabitable.
No. OUR kind of life can only happen in that sort of universe. But there is nothing to say that life based on other principles could not arise and thrive under different laws of physics. Indeed, we have already tested this sort of thing in computer simulations.
Furthermore, it has been conjectured that different regions of our own universe may have different physical constants or even different 'fundamental' forces, if they underwent different processes during the inflationary age.
In any case, if so much fine-tuning is required in order for life to exist, one is prompted to wonder how much more would be necessary in order to produce a deity...
- AshnodLv 77 years ago
I think you've failed to take into account quantum theory.
"A couple of percent difference in any one of these constants would make the universe completely uninhabitable. Roger Penrose, a peer of Hawking, calculated that the chance of a universe capable of supporting life as we know it as one part in 10 raised to the power of 10 raised to the power of 123."
The odds of any particular number coming up in the Powerball drawing are one in several million, but there's a winner almost every week. The statistic you quoted is only remarkable if you care ahead of time which outcome "wins."
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- NousLv 77 years ago
Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.
The bible is what is called "Faction" A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!
There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!
There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!
He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?
Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!
Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!
At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!
The Roman Emperor Constantine produced the bible and he was a pagan not god! He took the Jewish religion, organized it into Christianity and then into the Holly Roman Catholic Church!! Not in Israel or any of the countries of supposed origin but entirely ITALIAN!
Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?
The first person to provide a shred of verifiable evidence for God will become world famous and mega rich!
Ain't happened yet and it never will!
- AlexisLv 77 years ago
No, it hasn't.
You start with a flawed understanding of the Big Bang, and follow it up with a flawed understanding of the Anthropic Principle combined with baseless assertions regarding physical constants, including:
"* Minimum interval of space
* Minimum unit of time"
There *are* no "minimum intervals" or "units" in a nonquantized medium.
So, what is it? Did you, not understanding physics, compile this list? Or did you copy and paste a list from someone who doesn't understand physics?
I'm inclined to assume the latter.
- godlessLv 77 years ago
Atheists are just people who don't believe in any gods. We don't have to know all the answers to reject "a magic invisible being did it." However, I've done some research:
Even if your list of constants meant that some sort of god made the universe, it still would not be evidence for any particular god.
For thousands of years, people have said that their gods were behind what they didn't understand -- life, lightning, stars, earthquakes, the origin of life, the world or the universe, etc. Positing a god to supposedly answer a question solves nothing. It just adds an unwarranted level of complexity and stops you from asking more questions.
It used to be that science couldn't answer the question about the origin of the universe or of the Big Bang, but that didn't mean we should make up an answer (such as a god) and say that it was the cause. Within the last few decades scientists have discovered some good answers. Of course, a scientific explanation is more complex than simply saying, "God did it."
Quantum mechanics shows that "nothing," as a philosophical concept, does not exist. There is always a quantum field with random fluctuations.
There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in the quantum field -- via natural processes.
In relativity, gravity is negative energy, and matter and photons are positive energy. Because negative and positive energy seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy.
I know that this doesn't make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the realm of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd."
For more about the Big Bang and its implications, watch the video at the 1st link - "A Universe From Nothing" by theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, read an interview with him (at the 2nd link), get his new book (at the 3rd link), or read an excerpt from his book (at the 4th link). And, see the 5th link for "Quantum scientists make something out of nothing."
-Source(s): http://tinyurl.com/y8j6tpa http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/everything-and-... http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Somet... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=u... http://tinyurl.com/agfvch8 http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm#bigbang http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/originsofchr... http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/01/19/will-... http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/jesus-never-ex... http://www.godlessgeeks.com/JesusExist.htm
- 7 years ago
Why do you guys assume that just because we don;t know the cause you can just insert "God" and call it proof? It is NOT proof of god.
- Sly Phi AMLv 77 years ago
You assume too much.
Assumptions are not proofs and besides that your physics is lacking - or should I say, stop calling your religion physics, it isn't.
- 7 years ago
Sounds like you created a pseudo truth where you slapped a god sticker on it :P
- lainiebskyLv 77 years ago
If that were true, all astrophysicists would be believers. They're not. They're pretty heavily atheist.
Something's seriously wrong with your assumptions.