Orderly Universe: Evidence of God?

ABC News ^ | March 2, 2008 | John Allen Paulos

[Dog Gone]

Baloney.

To say that there are routine processes outside of our understanding of science is not the same as ascribing it to supernatural causes.

Not everything we don’t yet understand is a miracle. That’s ridiculous.

[metmom]

Ultimately, they reluctantly had to let the evidence of the rocks in their hands supplant the rock of their faith.

Which is too bad. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?

The problem with science fitting the dating is that scientists, at least those I've run into on FR, seem to be fixated on the 6,000 year old earth. They try to match up science and the young earth and find disparities and give it up. There's plenty of Biblical scholars that support the old earth version of creation and there's not so much difficulty with that.

But many scientists pick only the one viewpoint and use it to try to fit Scripture and science, knowing that it's not going to fit anyway. Then they say that they had to choose between the obvious that their senses tell them or give up their faith and so they give up their faith. Then they're not really looking to verify Scripture, they're looking for an excuse to reject it, because they could have certainly tried to fit it to old earth creation.

[AndrewC]

To say that there are routine processes outside of our understanding of science is not the same as ascribing it to supernatural causes.

A quantum fluctuation creating a universe is not a "routine" process. And what do you think "local variables" are with respect to quantum correlation? "that cannot be explained by any theory based only on local variables [1]"

[Dog Gone]

Okay, you’re right. These are miracles ranking right up there with the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich.

I’m not qualified to argue quantum physics with you. Perhaps it seems like a miracle to you, but if so, that’s because you think anything you can’t explain is a miracle.

Here’s one little hint for you. If it’s something that is happening all the time, it’s not a miracle. It’s something you haven’t figured out yet.

[AndrewC]

I’m not qualified to argue quantum physics with you. Perhaps it seems like a miracle to you, but if so, that’s because you think anything you can’t explain is a miracle.

Here’s one little hint for you. If it’s something that is happening all the time, it’s not a miracle. It’s something you haven’t figured out yet.

Well, first, your little hint is wrong. A "miracle" is something that is not expected to happen even if it happens "all the time". Lottery's are won "all of the time". It would be a miracle if every ticket buyer purchased the same numbers and those numbers were the winning ones. Be that as it may, your mind reading skills are lacking since you erroneously attribute something to me. Plus, I am not the only one with a view of "supernatural" which evidently does not meet your expectations.

Hidden Variables Quantum Theory and Divine Agency

Hidden Variables Quantum Theory and Divine Agency

Donavan Hall

The proposition that non-local hidden variables interpretations of quantum mechanics qualify as an appeal to supernatural agency is examined. Hidden variables theories postulate natural, but unobservable orders of reality whose processes give rise to observable phenomena. The unobservable order is inferred from the character of the observed universe. Various thinkers suggest that these unobservable orders might provide a means to describe divine interaction with the natural order, leading to a reconsideration of what is meant by supernatural agency. Does the use of unobserved or implied orders in a physical theory constitute an appeal to supernatural agency? Specifically, the ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, as formulated by David Bohm and his colleagues, employs an unobserved order called the implicate order which unfolds into an explicate, observable order. All phenomena come into existence out of this implicate order. It can be argued that the implicate order, or a higher superimplicate order, is analogous to what we call God. Inquiry which follows this line of investigation is complemented by a reversal of the question of whether science can appeal to the supernatural. If unobservable orders can be introduced to account for natural phenomena, then what can be gained by asking whether the theological method excludes wholly naturalistic explanations of God, religious experience, miracles, etc.? The line between what is the natural and the supernatural is blurred by the presence of unobserved orders in scientific theory. What is meant by the term "supernatural" is some form of revelation or act of a supreme being who stands outside of our order. This specific use of the term can no longer be applied since, if non-local hidden variables theories hold, all natural events rest on the activity of a 'super'-natural order. From these considerations, an investigation of supernature will be presented with an aim to demonstrate that natural science and theology exist on a continuum, each inquiring into that part of nature and supernature which is proper to its method.

[Amendment10]

Romans 1:19-20 indicates that God made creation to reflect his divine nature.

[CottShop]

predict isn’t the same as prophesy- with predictions- you take known variables and make a logical guess- prophesies are revelations about complete unknowns 1000’s of years down the road

[CottShop]

you can look up Josephus nephilim on google- take ya right to his historical books on Amazon

[CottShop]

[[I suspect that if science is faithful to its methods, it and religion will converge on a better understanding of our place in the universe.]]

You mean if Science stays faithful to it’s faith in methods that rely on assumptions, and methods of examination that rely on guesswork about past unknowns, and use measurements which rely on furhter guess work beyond 7000 or so years, then science and Religion can ‘converge’? No thanks, I’ll trust the impracle evidences which show discontinuity/ID/IC, and trust hte eyewitness accounts of God and Christ, and trust the Book which has proven itself trustworthy instead of venturing into imaginary scenarios to fill in gaps which violate nature.

[[Ultimately, they reluctantly had to let the evidence of the rocks in their hands supplant the rock of their faith.]]

Correction- ultimately, some who didn’t know God or care about empiracle facts, soccumbed to the same a priori beliefs of old earth advocates, and to the growing pressure from said advocates pushing hteir agenda, while others continued to rely on empiracle evidences trusting what was demonstratable instead of posthulating about past events based solely on a belief that everythign must have a natural explanation.

[presently no screen name]

I suspect that if science is faithful to its methods, it and religion will converge on a better understanding of our place in the universe.

What does religion have to do with the universe?

[mdmathis6]

Yet both reasons imply acts of faith, you make a choice and jump with it.

The only issue I really see with pascal’s reasoning is that the lack of personalized ultimate certainty involved with the first scenario which then in time of stress or persecution, one may find that one’s personal faith(assuming a belief in God but not entirely convinced of his existence) may not have any deep root!

It might be better if one had any doubt at all about HIS existence, to cry out to God from ones GUTS in total honesty about one’s doubts. God has promised his Holy Spirit and his assurance that we are his children, but this assurance is unique to every individual...it cannot be scientifically measured or explained.

Studies of Christ faithful humans how-ever reveal that they have generally healthier lives and marriages and that they deal with sickness,stress and death in a much more productive manner which may give some evidence of the benefits of being a spirit filled believer!

[null and void]

‘Predict’ is the scientifically loaded word, and ‘Prophesy’ is the religiously loaded word, for the same phenomena: saying what will happen before it happens.

[null and void]

You mean if Science stays faithful to it’s faith in methods that rely on assumptions

As opposed to, oh, say, Religion which relies on the assumption that the Bible is true, and tries to hammer every observation to fit?

No thanks, I’ll trust the impracle [empirical?] evidences which show discontinuity/ID/IC, and trust hte eyewitness

Who where the witnesses for the first 5 days?

accounts of God and Christ, and trust the Book which has proven itself trustworthy instead of venturing into imaginary scenarios to fill in gaps which violate nature.

Ummmmmmmmm, is this a bad time to point out the BY DEFINITION every Biblical miracle violates nature?

[Lurker]

The Universe is not 'orderly' by any stretch of the imagination.

L

[null and void]

What does religion have to do with the universe?

See post # 246.

How dare you say that there is anything that doesn't have to do with God????

[PeterPrinciple]

It supports ALL of them equally well, and since many of the named mythical beings are mutually exclusive, by extension, it supports NONE of them.

---

It has long been known that in a race, one horse will beat another. But which one? Differences are crucial. Lazarus Long.

Place your bets. Are you an accident of nature to worship leprechauns or created in the image of God.

[null and void]

Correction- ultimately, some who didn’t know God or care about empiracle facts, soccumbed to the same a priori beliefs of old earth advocates, and to the growing pressure from said advocates pushing hteir agenda, while others continued to rely on empiracle evidences trusting what was demonstratable instead of posthulating about past events based solely on a belief that everythign must have a natural explanation.

Translation: I know nothing about the men of science, and assume that they all started out as satanists.

Earth to CottShop, Science was founded in the west by men of Faith. Anyone who had any education got it from reading the Bible first. Some didn't publish for decades, as they frantically tried to fit what they were seeing into a Biblical context.

What would you do if you saw [naaah, let me use a loaded word:] What would you do if you personally witnessed something that conflicted with your understanding of the Bible?

That was the crisis of Faith these men endured. They came to the reluctant conclusion that their understanding of the Bible was incomplete, that verifiable facts are facts, published those facts (and in some cases were burned at the stake) and hoped that some day we would be able to reconcile the Truths in what God revealed in the Bible, and what He showed in the telescope and microscope.

I suspect you would deny your own lyin' eyes. IOW, you Faith is so weak, is such a house of cards, that merely seeing moons orbiting Jupiter would bring it tumbling down.

I bet you think Darwin said where life came from too. (In point of fact, he didn't)...

[null and void]

The only issue I really see with pascal’s reasoning is that the lack of personalized ultimate certainty involved with the first scenario which then in time of stress or persecution, one may find that one’s personal faith(assuming a belief in God but not entirely convinced of his existence) may not have any deep root!

Yet the foulest mass murdering, baby killing, child rapist would go straight to Heaven, if they managed to accept Christ as their personal Savior in the last milliseconds of life. How deep is that root?

According to the most fundamental articles of faith for most Christians, deep enough.

[MEGoody]

They leave aside the prior question of how He arose.

Because it is a stupid question.

No matter what one believes about the beginnings of the universe, one believes that someone or something is eternal, be it God or matter/energy.

[presently no screen name]

Your Post. I suspect that if science is faithful to its methods, it and religion will converge on a better understanding of our place in the universe.

Mine: What does religion have to do with the universe?

Yours: See post # 246.....How dare you say that there is anything that doesn't have to do with God????

And you direct me to someone else's post. Why can't you answer my question? You made that statement. Are you making yourself null and void?