Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, the headaches of understanding where science ends and philosophy starts...

Or getting a philosopher to say they dont have a clue.

Here are some thoughts for those sure of what timeis as opposed to knowing some characteristics.


https://www.wired.com/2010/02/what-is-time/

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, the headaches of understanding where science ends and philosophy starts...

Or getting a philosopher to say they dont have a clue.

Here are some thoughts for those sure of what timeis as opposed to knowing some characteristics.


https://www.wired.com/2010/02/what-is-time/

I am sure he can prove his "multi-verse" hypotheses, right?
Oh wait...

Look, the issue of what we can observe time OT be is the domain of science, that is a given.
Outside of that, science has no say in the matter.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, the headaches of understanding where science ends and philosophy starts...

Or getting a philosopher to say they dont have a clue.

Here are some thoughts for those sure of what timeis as opposed to knowing some characteristics.


https://www.wired.com/2010/02/what-is-time/

I am sure he can prove his "multi-verse" hypotheses, right?
Oh wait...

Exactly. According to Carrol what it comes down to is a theoretical field of unstable quantum fluctuation (for if it were completely static then we have no reason to believe it can pop anything) with its own time (though obviously unobservable) that has always existed. Pretty much the end of science as we know it or will ever know it since the ultimate explanation of reality is a set of brute force, inexplicable set of laws. Congratulations, he just created a god in his own image!

PaulSacramento wrote:Look, the issue of what we can observe time OT be is the domain of science, that is a given.
Outside of that, science has no say in the matter.

Well, one can always theorize.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, the headaches of understanding where science ends and philosophy starts...

Or getting a philosopher to say they dont have a clue.

Here are some thoughts for those sure of what timeis as opposed to knowing some characteristics.


https://www.wired.com/2010/02/what-is-time/

I am sure he can prove his "multi-verse" hypotheses, right?
Oh wait...

Look, the issue of what we can observe time OT be is the domain of science, that is a given.
Outside of that, science has no say in the matter.

Did you really say, "Prove a hypothesis" ? Oh dear. You've gone ab on us.

As for the "oh wait" mini snark, physics isnt my thing. Or yours.

But any person can easily enough find articles discussing the nature
of time in a way that shows that it is a bit much for anyone to declare that they
know all about it.

That is my point; did you have one?

Audie wrote:But any person can easily enough find articles discussing the nature
of time in a way that shows that it is a bit much for anyone to declare that they
know all about it.

That is my point; did you have one?

I doubt very much anyone has said that we know all about what time is. But we do know a great deal and, incidentally, there is absolutely nothing in what Carrol is proposing that contradicts what Jac has put forth. Carrol readily acknowledges that even in the almost static random fluctuation state, time does exist and move forward. I.e. it is a 'measure' of change from one state to another, even if this change is seemingly random (randomness being far from known).

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:But any person can easily enough find articles discussing the nature
of time in a way that shows that it is a bit much for anyone to declare that they
know all about it.

That is my point; did you have one?

I doubt very much anyone has said that we know all about what time is. But we do know a great deal and, incidentally, there is absolutely nothing in what Carrol is proposing that contradicts what Jac has put forth. Carrol readily acknowledges that even in the almost static random fluctuation state, time does exist and move forward. I.e. it is a 'measure' of change from one state to another, even if this change is seemingly random (randomness being far from known).

How about "not enough about the nature of time for conclusions about god to be anything but
an intellectual exercise" instead of "all about"

Too sick for more, Gotta lie down.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:But any person can easily enough find articles discussing the nature
of time in a way that shows that it is a bit much for anyone to declare that they
know all about it.

That is my point; did you have one?

I doubt very much anyone has said that we know all about what time is. But we do know a great deal and, incidentally, there is absolutely nothing in what Carrol is proposing that contradicts what Jac has put forth. Carrol readily acknowledges that even in the almost static random fluctuation state, time does exist and move forward. I.e. it is a 'measure' of change from one state to another, even if this change is seemingly random (randomness being far from known).

How about "not enough about the nature of time for conclusions about god to be anything but
an intellectual exercise" instead of "all about"

I sort of agree with that, as long as it cuts both ways (says nothing about God either way), which of course is a question of metaphysics, not physics, as Paul suggested.

Audie wrote:Too sick for more, Gotta lie down.

To be continued next year. Feel better.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:But any person can easily enough find articles discussing the nature
of time in a way that shows that it is a bit much for anyone to declare that they
know all about it.

That is my point; did you have one?

I doubt very much anyone has said that we know all about what time is. But we do know a great deal and, incidentally, there is absolutely nothing in what Carrol is proposing that contradicts what Jac has put forth. Carrol readily acknowledges that even in the almost static random fluctuation state, time does exist and move forward. I.e. it is a 'measure' of change from one state to another, even if this change is seemingly random (randomness being far from known).

How about "not enough about the nature of time for conclusions about god to be anything but
an intellectual exercise" instead of "all about"

I sort of agree with that, as long as it cuts both ways (says nothing about God either way), which of course is a question of metaphysics, not physics, as Paul suggested.

Audie wrote:Too sick for more, Gotta lie down.

To be continued next year. Feel better.

Doing some better. Cant talk, but that may be a blessing to others.

My thought is that basing metaphysics on faulty physics and thinking that is a good and sufficint way
to prove God is pretty lame, it gets nowhere with me.

My (obviously super well qualified) take on proof / disproof of god is that it is not going to happen.

Audie wrote:Doing some better. Cant talk, but that may be a blessing to others.

Glad you're feeling better.

Audie wrote:My thought is that basing metaphysics on faulty physics and thinking that is a good and sufficint way
to prove God is pretty lame, it gets nowhere with me.

If I'm reading you correctly, I think you're mixing ideas that should be distinct.
Metaphysical proofs are never based on physics (faulty or not). To the extent that physics is used in support of the proof, it is used as evidence, not as an axiom. If the physics is found to be faulty, in no way does it invalidate the proof. The only way a metaphysical proof is invalidated is to show that one or more of the premises are not true or warranted, or to show that the conclusion does not follow from the set of premises. So metaphysical proofs, just like mathematical proofs, stand as true unless invalidated by showing an error in the logic. Physics has nothing to do with it.

Audie wrote:My (obviously super well qualified) take on proof / disproof of god is that it is not going to happen.

It has happened. If you disagree then I invite you to delve into one or more of the metaphysical proofs and show where the logic is in error.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Doing some better. Cant talk, but that may be a blessing to others.

Glad you're feeling better.

Audie wrote:My thought is that basing metaphysics on faulty physics and thinking that is a good and sufficint way
to prove God is pretty lame, it gets nowhere with me.

If I'm reading you correctly, I think you're mixing ideas that should be distinct.
Metaphysical proofs are never based on physics (faulty or not). To the extent that physics is used in support of the proof, it is used as evidence, not as an axiom. If the physics is found to be faulty, in no way does it invalidate the proof. The only way a metaphysical proof is invalidated is to show that one or more of the premises are not true or warranted, or to show that the conclusion does not follow from the set of premises. So metaphysical proofs, just like mathematical proofs, stand as true unless invalidated by showing an error in the logic. Physics has nothing to do with it.

Audie wrote:My (obviously super well qualified) take on proof / disproof of god is that it is not going to happen.

It has happened. If you disagree then I invite you to delve into one or more of the metaphysical proofs and show where the logic is in error.

Prease exprain the role of time in "first cause" and "eternal".

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, the headaches of understanding where science ends and philosophy starts...

Or getting a philosopher to say they dont have a clue.

Here are some thoughts for those sure of what timeis as opposed to knowing some characteristics.


https://www.wired.com/2010/02/what-is-time/

Regarding Sean Carroll and your linked wired.com article, he actually doesn't have your strange distaste for philosophy as written elsewhere:

• In his new book, he describes some of the fundamental ideas in modern physics with a philosophical lens, while exploring life's biggest mysteries: the origin of the universe and the meaning of life itself. At the same time, with references to Wile E. Coyote, Captain Kirk and "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure," he avoids an overly serious tone.
  
  In recent years, prominent scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and Stephen Hawking have downplayed the importance of philosophy or even denigrated it. Carroll is not among this crowd.
  
  "There are a lot of scientists and science promoters who have said not entirely complimentary things about philosophy, but that misses the point about what it's for," Carroll said in an interview. "The purpose of philosophy is not to be the handmaiden of science."
  
  Though his Ph.D. is in physics, Carroll has a strong interest in philosophy as well, and minored in it in college. He sees philosophy as a method for interpreting science and for a deeper understanding of physical phenomena. He uses philosophical concepts such as causality, determinism and mind-body dualism to explore everything from the tiniest subatomic particles to the accelerating expansion of the universe -- as well as the role humans play somewhere in between.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, the headaches of understanding where science ends and philosophy starts...

Or getting a philosopher to say they dont have a clue.

Here are some thoughts for those sure of what timeis as opposed to knowing some characteristics.



https://www.wired.com/2010/02/what-is-time/

Regarding Sean Carroll and your linked wired.com article, he actually doesn't have your strange distaste for philosophy as written elsewhere:

• In his new book, he describes some of the fundamental ideas in modern physics with a philosophical lens, while exploring life's biggest mysteries: the origin of the universe and the meaning of life itself. At the same time, with references to Wile E. Coyote, Captain Kirk and "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure," he avoids an overly serious tone.
  
  In recent years, prominent scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and Stephen Hawking have downplayed the importance of philosophy or even denigrated it. Carroll is not among this crowd.
  
  "There are a lot of scientists and science promoters who have said not entirely complimentary things about philosophy, but that misses the point about what it's for," Carroll said in an interview. "The purpose of philosophy is not to be the handmaiden of science."
  
  Though his Ph.D. is in physics, Carroll has a strong interest in philosophy as well, and minored in it in college. He sees philosophy as a method for interpreting science and for a deeper understanding of physical phenomena. He uses philosophical concepts such as causality, determinism and mind-body dualism to explore everything from the tiniest subatomic particles to the accelerating expansion of the universe -- as well as the role humans play somewhere in between.

No doubt "metaphysics" is fine sport for the leisure class, or, those who just want
to believe they know more and see deeper than others, without going to the requisite effort.

See those who "know" evolution is wrong, thus vaulting ahead of any scientist on earth.

Did any of that address how one is to be so wise on concepts like eternity if they
dont actually even know what time is?

I don't really know what your perception of philosophy is, but it seems direly wrong to me. Science really couldn't get off the ground without it. And philosophy without science is like navigating blind. The two really mutually inform each other.

Kurieuo wrote:I don't really know what your perception of philosophy is, but it seems direly wrong to me. Science really couldn't get off the ground without it. And philosophy without science is like navigating blind. The two really mutually inform each other.

Seemed others are saying that their metaphysics is as true regardlees of physics.

I don't think anyone is saying that, Audie.