Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

If I claimed to know something I would be able to explain it in detail and so should you.

I am perfectly willing and have done so, to consider all that is available regarding creation

The universe is full of energy from which matter was formed by means of atoms etc;

One of the main problems with the human race is the fact that they cannot accept that there are things way above anything within our capabilities and to think so restricts their ability to consider other matters and they go over the same thing time and time again with no answers.

We may think we know the workings of the earth and all it holds but I think not.

There is far more to learn about the earth and all it holds than we already know.

There are matters that I cannot understand regarding previous life forms, dinosaurs have always caused me to attempt to reconsider my beliefs but then something comes along and in fact reiforces them, I could not be more certain of the existance of God by experience.

There must have been a reason why the original life forms were created.

I cannot believe a 45 ton dinosaur evolved.

I cannot believe that life could have happened by chance and without the most high intelligence being involved.

I may have to do my posts in sections as no doubt it is the Devil not wanting you to consider other ideas that keeps deleting some of my posts.

first of all I investigate exactly that which is involved, [all that is involved

snowyflake wrote:
If you seek truth, the honest answer is 'I don't know all that is involved because I am not an expert in this field'

If one seeks truth, whether one is “an expert in the field” or not, the honest answer is “I don’t know”, because, whether one is “an expert in the field” or not, no one who seeks truth possesses omniscience.

snowyflake wrote:
You don't need omniscience to understand evolution.

snowyflake wrote:
One doesn't need omniscience to posit anything.

snowyflake wrote:
It would be more truthful if believers just stated they believe for no reason whatsoever.

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
by Rich Deem

In the nineteenth century, it certainly looked as though science was going in that direction [the naturalistic explanation of everything we see]… However, 20th century and now 21st century science is leading us back down the road of design - not from a lack of scientific explanation, but from scientific explanation that requires an appeal to the extremely unlikely - something that science does not deal well with. As a result of the recent evidence in support of design, many scientists now believe in God. According to a recent article:

“… a few months ago… I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”⁽¹⁾

The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of "supernatural plan" or "Agency" behind it.

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”⁽³⁾

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.... The impression of design is overwhelming”.⁽⁴⁾

References

1. Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
3. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
4. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

Y-ORIGINS
Science and the Origin of Life.

Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes

many scientists now believe in God

Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine, and refers to himself as an atheist. In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along – it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it." Penrose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association.

snowyflake wrote:

many scientists now believe in God

How many?

RockOnBrother wrote:

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
by Rich Deem
As a result of the recent evidence in support of design, many scientists now believe in God.

snowyflake wrote:
How many?

FROM THE SEPTEMBER 2009 ISSUE

Discover Interview: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain—and the universe itself—must function according to some theory we haven't yet discovered.

By Susan Kruglinski, Oliver Chanarin|Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Roger Penrose could easily be excused for having a big ego. A theorist whose name will be forever linked with such giants as Hawking and Einstein, Penrose has made fundamental contributions to physics, mathematics, and geometry. He reinterpreted general relativity to prove that black holes can form from dying stars. He invented twistor theory—a novel way to look at the structure of space-time—and so led us to a deeper understanding of the nature of gravity. He discovered a remarkable family of geometric forms that came to be known as Penrose tiles. He even moonlighted as a brain researcher, coming up with a provocative theory that consciousness arises from quantum-mechanical processes

Physicists will never come to grips with the grand theories of the universe, Penrose holds, until they see past the blinding distractions of today’s half-baked theories to the deepest layer of the reality in which we live.

But when you accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics [in the macro world], you have to give up the idea of space-time as we know it from Einstein. The greatest weirdness here is that it doesn’t make sense. If you follow the rules, you come up with something that just isn’t right.

Dirac is the one whom people find most surprising, because he set up the whole foundation, the general framework of quantum mechanics. People think of him as this hard-liner, but he was very cautious in what he said. When he was asked, “What’s the answer to the measurement problem?” his response was, “Quantum mechanics is a provisional theory. Why should I look for an answer in quantum mechanics?” He didn’t believe that it was true.

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics

Roger Penrose knows that he and other physics giants don’t know a lot about a lot of realty. I believe that Roger Penrose knows that his decades-long search for truth has not revealed the entire truth.

Quotes from the experts...

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “The laws [of physics]… seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose".⁽⁵⁾

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”⁽⁶⁾

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”⁽⁷⁾

http://www.theoriginproject.co.uk/experts.htm

RockOnBrother, Thursday 2 May 2013, 22:59
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p540-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#39905

As the study of physics continued, I slowly realized design on a macro scale. Just the fact that phenomena like all of the mind-bending aspects of Special and General Relativity can be precisely described mathematically pretty much blew me away. One day, maybe two years into college, somewhere around twenty years of age, these self-revelations caused me to admit that the universe I studied is designed. Shortly after that, the sure knowledge that I was permeated, inundated, and surrounded by design caused me to admit that the designed universe is caused by a designer.

now the accepted odds of anything being possible is[if you do nol know then you are in no position to consider it] is far far far far far with a mantisa of 1,000 over and above,

I try to keep things simple for simple minds.

So all the latest c onsiderations by many scientists point to the fact that creation involves intelligence.

Change your reading habits and stop reading the childrens publications.

snowyflake wrote:
If one is quoting authors they are thus endorsing those authors quotes.

snowyflake wrote:
If one is not endorsing an authors quotes, one shouldn't quote them…

If I quote an author, I quote an author. If I choose to endorse an author’s quotes, I will say so. Until such time as I so say, any statement made by another person is speculative; accordingly, if the above-referenced statement pertains to me, it is a speculative statement.

RockOnBrother wrote:

.... I post within the jurisdictions of the Sovereign State of Texas and the United States of America; thus, I should quote whatever I choose to quote, as long I do so in accordance with the laws of the Sovereign State of Texas and the United States of America.

So every time you quote the Bible but do not endorse it, we must assume under the laws of Texas that the verse is pure speculation, so the Bible is untrue until such time as you say so.

Y-ORIGINS
Science and the Origin of Life.

Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes

Arthur Eddington

Shirina wrote:
Arthur Eddington practiced astrophysics during a time when no one even knew that there were other galaxies. He lived in an age when religion was still heavily pervasive even among the scientific community. Incidentally, he was raised as a Quaker, so religious indoctrination was most likely present.

Arthur Eddington
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, OM, FRS^[1] (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) was a British astrophysicist of the early 20th century. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honor.

He is famous for his work regarding the theory of relativity. Eddington wrote a number of articles which announced and explained Einstein's theory of general relativity to the English-speaking world. World War I severed many lines of scientific communication and new developments in German science were not well known in England. He also conducted an expedition to observe the Solar eclipse of 29 May 1919 that provided one of the earliest confirmations of relativity, and he became known for his popular expositions and interpretations of the theory.

During World War I Eddington was Secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society, which meant he was the first to receive a series of letters and papers from Willem de Sitter regarding Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Eddington was fortunate in being not only one of the few astronomers with the mathematical skills to understand general relativity, but (owing to his internationalist and pacifist views) one of the few at the time who was still interested in pursuing a theory developed by a German physicist. He quickly became the chief supporter and expositor of relativity in Britain. He and Astronomer Royal Frank Watson Dyson organized two expeditions to observe a solar eclipse in 1919 to make the first empirical test of Einstein’s theory: the measurement of the deflection of light by the sun's gravitational field. In fact, it was Dyson’s argument for the indispensability of Eddington’s expertise in this test that allowed him to escape prison during the war.

After the war, Eddington travelled to the island of Príncipe near Africa to watch the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. During the eclipse, he took pictures of the stars in the region around the Sun. According to the theory of general relativity, stars with light rays that passed near the Sun would appear to have been slightly shifted because their light had been curved by its gravitational field. This effect is noticeable only during eclipses, since otherwise the Sun's brightness obscures the affected stars. Eddington showed that Newtonian gravitation could be interpreted to predict half the shift predicted by Einstein.

Eddington's observations published the next year[4] confirmed Einstein's theory, and were hailed at the time as a conclusive proof of general relativity over the Newtonian model. The news was reported in newspapers all over the world as a major story. Afterward, Eddington embarked on a campaign to popularize relativity and the expedition as landmarks both in scientific development and international scientific relations.

It has been claimed that Eddington's observations were of poor quality and he had unjustly discounted simultaneous observations at Sobral, Brazil, which appeared closer to the Newtonian model, but a 1979 re-analysis with modern measuring equipment and contemporary software validated Eddington's results and conclusions.^[5]

Born - 28 December 1882, Kendal, England
Died - 22 November 1944 (aged 61), Cambridge, England
Residence - England
Nationality - English
Fields - Astrophysics
Institutions - University of Cambridge
Alma mater - University of Manchester, University of Cambridge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington

Eddington luminosity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Eddington luminosity, also referred to as the Eddington limit, is the maximum luminosity a body (such as a star) can achieve when there is balance between the force of radiation acting outward and the gravitational force acting inward. The state of balance is called hydrostatic equilibrium. When a star exceeds the Eddington luminosity, it will initiate a very intense radiation-driven stellar wind from its outer layers. Since most massive stars have luminosities far below the Eddington luminosity, their winds are mostly driven by the less intense line absorption.^[1] The Eddington limit is invoked to explain the observed luminosity of accreting black holes such as quasars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_limit

Y-ORIGINS
Science and the Origin of Life.

Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes

RockOnBrother, Thursday 2 May 2013, 22:59
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p540-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#39905

As the study of physics continued, I slowly realized design on a macro scale. Just the fact that phenomena like all of the mind-bending aspects of Special and General Relativity can be precisely described mathematically pretty much blew me away. One day, maybe two years into college, somewhere around twenty years of age, these self-revelations caused me to admit that the universe I studied is designed. Shortly after that, the sure knowledge that I was permeated, inundated, and surrounded by design caused me to admit that the designed universe is caused by a designer.

I don’t see arguments “from design” as being very convincing. After all, given that the universe is the only one to which we have access (after all, by definition it is “all there is”), from what basis can we make the determination that the universe is or isn’t “fine-tuned”? Such a conclusion would require the ability for one to compare the nature of this universe to a multitude of other universes by which the apparent “fine-tunedness” of the universe might be properly adjudicated. From such an analysis, we might find that the universe is not as finely tuned as it could be, or that there is a greater range of permissibility for the “delicate balance” than we could have otherwise perceived. But the fact of the matter is that we have no other universe to compare ours to, so the anthropic principle yet reigns. Despite the appearances of unlikelihood, the chances of the universe coming into its particular arrangement is precisely 100%.

There is an evident need to arbitrate the competing claims on this thread, to establish whose "Expert" is more expert than anybody else's Expert.