Do you have evidence of god’s interaction with nature?

[Star]

I often hear/read claims of supernatural entities like gods affecting our natural world in some extraordinary way. Science only studies nature, but if there’s a god which interacts with nature (even if this god transcends nature), there should still be scientific evidence of this interaction.

Let’s define nature as the universe; everything from virtual particles to black holes to human brains. Science can detect the invisible by just their effect on the observable, and use math to make testable predictions. For example, they can detect dark matter and black holes by their gravity, or use math to predict the first moments of the Big Bang.

The expected evidence depends on the particular theist claim. What is this alleged god’s role in nature? Does he cause earthquakes? Does he split seas? Does he create new species from nothing? Did he flood the Earth? Does he answer prayers? Or did he just “fine-tune� the universe for life at the beginning, and hasn't done anything since?

A challenge to apologists: If your god interacts with the natural world, please explain (1) the interaction, and (2) your supporting evidence. (If your god doesn't interact with nature, then this doesn't apply to you.)

My position is that this evidence doesn't exist, but I’m willing to assess any presented evidence and change my mind, if necessary. I believe everything moves according to laws, and anything we don’t yet understand (e.g. quantum physics) will eventually be understood.

[Star]

The problem you don't seem to be realizing is that even if all of reality is nothing more than the result of a quantum fluctuation of mysterious quantum fields that always exist, that in itself is no less mysterious or magical than a sentient God.

We know quantum fields exist. Science can learn about them.

But we don't know that a god exists. And science can't learn about him.

Such a god would have to be even more complex than his creation, and require even more of an explanation. He's definitely more mysterious if he exists.

[bluethread]

I'm not aware of any theory that predicts scientific progress must stop. Are you referring to Bell's theorem or the Uncertainty principle? Neither predict anything of the sort.

Yes, that's exactly what the Uncertainty principle is predicting. And Bells theorem is merely a confirmation that it's true.

The uncertainty has to do with the preciseness in which physical properties of particles can be determined simultaneously. It's merely a confirmation that our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, and probably will be for quite some time. Nothing credible predicts scientific and technological progress will stop, at least not unless we all die.

It was thought at one time that matter was composed of increasingly smaller physical structures, until the Quark was discovered. As the speed of light defined the horizon between time and space, so the quark defines the horizon between matter and energy. Even if we were able to discover the unifying theorem that defines the horizons between all dimensions and were able to convert something from one form to another at will, would we not then consider ourselves gods. Then, would not the lesser beings seeing our transferences doubt our existence and chalk them up to chance interactions that they would one day understand through the discovery of that same unifying theorem? Put in less scientific terms, is this not the essence of the Serpent Myth that HaTorah was designed to correct? That is the universe was thought to be chaos(random selection) that is bound by the serpent (unifying theorem) and all is but recurring cycles (matter and motion) that merely perpetuate themselves(follow impersonal laws), placing man in perpetual servitude(removing all meaning).

[2ndpillar]

I often hear/read claims of supernatural entities like gods affecting our natural world in some extraordinary way. Science only studies nature, but if there’s a god which interacts with nature (even if this god transcends nature), there should still be scientific evidence of this interaction.

Let’s define nature as the universe; everything from virtual particles to black holes to human brains. Science can detect the invisible by just their effect on the observable, and use math to make testable predictions. For example, they can detect dark matter and black holes by their gravity, or use math to predict the first moments of the Big Bang.

The expected evidence depends on the particular theist claim. What is this alleged god’s role in nature? Does he cause earthquakes? Does he split seas? Does he create new species from nothing? Did he flood the Earth? Does he answer prayers? Or did he just “fine-tune� the universe for life at the beginning, and hasn't done anything since?

A challenge to apologists: If your god interacts with the natural world, please explain (1) the interaction, and (2) your supporting evidence. (If your god doesn't interact with nature, then this doesn't apply to you.)

My position is that this evidence doesn't exist, but I’m willing to assess any presented evidence and change my mind, if necessary. I believe everything moves according to laws, and anything we don’t yet understand (e.g. quantum physics) will eventually be understood.

Dear star,
One of the Greatest Scientist, Isaac Newton, looked to the bible for answers to his scientific questions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newt ... lt_studies The creator of the Universe coded the principles of creation in the bible. Creation was simply a temple for the Spirit of God to reside. The coding of Creation can be found in Nature, the geometry of the Temple in the Desert, in Jerusalem, and the human numerical relationship of the Temple of Israel, which was composed originally of 12 tribes plus Levi, stemming from the 3 primary elements of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Something similar to the image of the original "Standard Model". of physics, but progressively more complex, but elegant in presentation. http://physics.info/standard/ The 3D geometry is based on the initial 3 units of length, being unity, square root of two, and the mean proportion. These combine into the Platonic type of elements which make up the building blocks of nature, such as the 4 basic building blocks of DNA.

[Jashwell]

2ndpillar, could you instead of giving us retrospective information no better than the Nostradamus predictions, give us realistically interpreted information that can be predictive of things we don't know yet - and aren't either fairly relatively evidenced externally or easy to predict.

Why has, for 1500 years, all of western society controlled almost exclusively by Christianity, which treated the Bible as far more reverent than even some Christian extremists do, not discovered any of this BECAUSE of the Bible? Why is it all discovered because of science, and then in retrospect do people find patterns that appear to represent it?

You said the "4 building blocks of DNA." Does that mean God forgot about the actual backbone chain, the most critical part of DNA? Does God think that the DNA will work if it's just base pairs floating around in space? Does it mean that if we interpret it for RNA, God's forgot about the extra base?

[2ndpillar]

2ndpillar, could you instead of giving us retrospective information no better than the Nostradamus predictions, give us realistically interpreted information that can be predictive of things we don't know yet - and aren't either fairly relatively evidenced externally or easy to predict.

Why has, for 1500 years, all of western society controlled almost exclusively by Christianity, which treated the Bible as far more reverent than even some Christian extremists do, not discovered any of this BECAUSE of the Bible? Why is it all discovered because of science, and then in retrospect do people find patterns that appear to represent it?

You said the "4 building blocks of DNA." Does that mean God forgot about the actual backbone chain, the most critical part of DNA? Does God think that the DNA will work if it's just base pairs floating around in space? Does it mean that if we interpret it for RNA, God's forgot about the extra base?

Dear Jash,
I was actually referring to the OT. "Christianity" actually tries and annul the OT, and therefore has no clue as to the mysteries of "Scripture" (Hebrews 8:13). Isaac Newton realized the problem with the NT, and did his own editing. The NT is a product of the woman who sits upon the head of the beast representing Rome (Rev 17:3). Yeshua in Revelation 18:4 tells his people that they must "come out of that woman", which is the Roman church and her daughters. Yeshua also mentions that everything hidden will be revealed. We are now at the "end of the age" where nothing will be hidden.

As for the revelation as to the meaning of the OT, that was to be revealed at the "end of the age". (Daniel 12:9) As for other revelations which are to be revealed are the Stumbling Blocks, and those who Commit Lawlessness (Mt 13:41). These would be represented by Peter's heir, the pope, and the false prophet, who taught Lawlessness, in the form of the gospel of Grace, the self professed apostle Paul. The "Christian" church is built on sand, and is about to have a great fall (Mt 7:25-27)

As for the blue print for creation, I simply touched the surface. Abraham's family involved much more than one wife, and one son, and the architecture of the Temples, included much more than a courtyard and an inner sanctuary, which no one was allowed to enter.

As for a bible prediction, I would say that according to Ze 14, that Jerusalem will be captured, and that at that time, the nations which went up against Jerusalem will be struck down with a plague whereas their "flesh will rot while they stand on their feet",..etc. (Ze 14:12). This being the known affects of radiation poisoning, and the "Lord will be king over all the earth;" (Ze 14:9) At the time of the capture of Jerusalem, there will be a great earth change, which will change the land from Geba to Rimmon into a plain (Ze 14:10) And the Mount of Olives will be split down the middle from west to east. (Ze 14:4)

As for science, they are like the blind man describing an elephant. There is no unifying theory. All you have is empirical laws which work under certain circumstances. An example being that F almost equals ma, at moderate speeds. Some scientist work on string theory for years, and will find they have wasted their time according to other scientist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

[Divine Insight]

The uncertainty has to do with the preciseness in which physical properties of particles can be determined simultaneously. It's merely a confirmation that our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, and probably will be for quite some time. Nothing credible predicts scientific and technological progress will stop, at least not unless we all die.

That's for the laugh. You are basically stating Einstein's view when you say, "It's merely a confirmation that our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete"

However, Neils Bohr showed that this is not the case. This is what the Great Debate was all about. And Neils Bohr was ultimately the winner of that debate with the discovery of Bell's Theorem capping it off.

But for whatever it's worth, you are not alone in your view. There are many hold outs who are hoping for a resolution that will bring physics back down to a classical picture of reality and vindicate Einstein's objections to QM.

However, I think that most physicists who actually work with QM understand that this is not going to happen.

[Divine Insight]

We know quantum fields exist. Science can learn about them.

Science already has learned about them, and that knowledge is called "Quantum Mechanics".

But we don't know that a god exists. And science can't learn about him.

We didn't know that dark matter existed either, but now that we believe it does exist we are trying to learn about it.

Such a god would have to be even more complex than his creation, and require even more of an explanation. He's definitely more mysterious if he exists.

No not at all. Your thinking here is based upon the assumption that a simple explanation could ultimately be found. But you don't know that. And therefore you can't say which would require more of an explanation.

The existence of a "God" may be the only explanation possible.

Moreover, you keep referring to God as "him" or "He", and this indicates that you are thinking in terms of an anthropomorphic egotistical sentient God not unlike the Biblical God. A God that exists totally separate from the universe and actually created the universe. That type of God is highly unlikely.

If God exists we are it. We are this entity that became manifest as a physical universe. In fact, there are good arguments to be made that our very ability to experience this life is evidence of the existence of this type of God. Why? Well, because if these quantum fields that have become us didn't already innately have the ability to experience anything then sentience would not be possible.

A purely materialistic universe could never become consciously aware of itself. The fact that we are aware of our existence pretty much demands that the fundamental stuff we are made of must innately have that capability already. And for this reason we already have hard evidence to support the Eastern mystical view of God.

[Star]

Science already has learned about them, and that knowledge is called "Quantum Mechanics".

No, our understanding is woefully incomplete, although it's improving. And as I explained previously, there are limitations to the precision in which we can observe and measure certain physical properties and behavior of elementary particles, making the outcomes of some experiments unpredictable, or uncertain.

"If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics." - Richard Feynman

We didn't know that dark matter existed either, but now that we believe it does exist we are trying to learn about it.

There's evidence of dark matter's existence. It interacts with the observable universe, which is a part of nature. I even used this as an example in my OP. Do you have any evidence of a sentient god interacting with nature?

No not at all. Your thinking here is based upon the assumption that a simple explanation could ultimately be found. But you don't know that. And therefore you can't say which would require more of an explanation.

I never said the explanation is "simple". Please don't put words in my mouth. I merely stated that if an intelligent creator fine-tuned or created the universe for life, it, they, he, she, whatever (running out of words) would have to be more complex. It violates Occam's razor and the logical principles of the default position, null hypothesis, and burden of evidence. You're also still ignoring my request for evidence. I need evidence to accept extraordinary claims, not rhetoric.

Moreover, you keep referring to God as "him" or "He", and this indicates that you are thinking in terms of an anthropomorphic egotistical sentient God not unlike the Biblical God. A God that exists totally separate from the universe and actually created the universe. That type of God is highly unlikely.

I don't think god's a he or a she. I don't think it's an it or a them. I don't know or believe that it's anything.

We're going off-topic and getting too hung up on semantics. If you want to discuss how science won't progress further in the future, start your own thread on the subject, but until then, please provide evidence for how this "sentient god" interacts with nature.

[McCulloch]

One of the Greatest Scientist, Isaac Newton, looked to the bible for answers to his scientific questions.

There are really good reasons why Isaac Newton's contributions to mathematics and physics are remembered and his highly speculative musings on supernatural are largely ignored and forgotten.

The creator of the Universe coded the principles of creation in the bible.

Oh really? How do you know this? What specific parts of the bible contain these principles of creation?

Creation was simply a temple for the Spirit of God to reside. The coding of Creation can be found in Nature, the geometry of the Temple in the Desert, in Jerusalem, and the human numerical relationship of the Temple of Israel, which was composed originally of 12 tribes plus Levi, stemming from the 3 primary elements of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Something similar to the image of the original "Standard Model". of physics, but progressively more complex, but elegant in presentation. http://physics.info/standard/ The 3D geometry is based on the initial 3 units of length, being unity, square root of two, and the mean proportion. These combine into the Platonic type of elements which make up the building blocks of nature, such as the 4 basic building blocks of DNA.

OK here is a fun game. Standard model consists of four forces, six quarks, six leptons, five bosons and three generations of matter. There are three spacial dimensions and five Platonic solids. Now find numbers three, four, five and six somewhere in scripture and stand back in amazement at this wondrous and unexplainable coincidence.

[Divine Insight]

Science already has learned about them, and that knowledge is called "Quantum Mechanics".

No, our understanding is woefully incomplete, although it's improving. And as I explained previously, there are limitations to the precision in which we can observe and measure certain physical properties and behavior of elementary particles, making the outcomes of some experiments unpredictable, or uncertain.

"If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics." - Richard Feynman

It's funny that you should quote Richard Feynman here because you clearly don't even understand what he was referring to.

Quantum Mechanics actually refers to two entirely different things.

One is the actual mathematical theory called "Quantum Mechanics". Do you think that Richard Feynman didn't understand the mathematical theory of Quantum Mechanics? He one a Noble Prize for his understanding and advancement of this theory. And Quantum Mechanics (the mathematical theory) does indeed state via the Uncertainty Principle that there are built-in restrictions in nature that will not permit a greater precision to be measure. It's not that we just aren't clever enough to know how to go about it.

So you are actually showing that you don't understand "Quantum Mechanics" (the mathematical theory)

The other reference to "Quantum Mechanics" (the one that Richard Feynman was actually referring to in his famous quote) is referring to the actual behavior of nature. And he was stating that if you try to understand this intuitively you will fail because it's not intuitive. And therefore no one can understand the actual behavior of nature. It's not that they can't understand "Quantum Mechanics" (the mathematical theory). That would be absurd. That would be the same as saying that the physicists can't even understand their own mathematical construction.

They clearly do understand that completely.

And so do I.

But I would hold that you don't if you are thinking that the Uncertainty Principle is a statement about are inability to make precise measurements. That's not what it's saying at all.

We didn't know that dark matter existed either, but now that we believe it does exist we are trying to learn about it.

There's evidence of dark matter's existence. It interacts with the observable universe, which is a part of nature. I even used this as an example in my OP. Do you have any evidence of a sentient god interacting with nature?

My point is that there was a time when we had no clue that dark matter existed. Yet it did exist. We finally found evidence that it exists even though we had no reason to suspect that it might exist.

What I am saying is that the very same thing can easily be true of a God. Just because we don't currently have evidence for a God doesn't mean that one cannot or does not exist.

In fact, I argue that we actually do have evidence for the existence of a God but that material for another thread.

No not at all. Your thinking here is based upon the assumption that a simple explanation could ultimately be found. But you don't know that. And therefore you can't say which would require more of an explanation.

I never said the explanation is "simple". Please don't put words in my mouth. I merely stated that if an intelligent creator fine-tuned or created the universe for life, it, they, he, she, whatever (running out of words) would have to be more complex.

The very idea that a creator fine-tuned anything can be a misguided notion. If the universe is a manifestation of this God then no fine-tuning would be required. On the contrary the universe could not have been any other way. So no fine-tuning would be required.

And as far as complexity is concerned, that too is entirely a guess on your part. Why would God need to be any more complex than quantum fields?

It violates Occam's razor and the logical principles of the default position, null hypothesis, and burden of evidence. You're also still ignoring my request for evidence. I need evidence to accept extraordinary claims, not rhetoric.

You are misunderstanding Occam's Razor as well. Occam's Razor simply states that if you have more than one working theory that explains something, then choose the theory that is the least complicated.

But you don't have a working theory for a godless universe. Therefore you cannot claim to be able to apply Occam's Razor to decide which theory is simpler.

You would need to have your Theory of Everything in hand before you could even apply Occam's Razor. And then you would still be stuck with Stephen Hawkin's question "What breathes fire into your equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

So even if you had a working Theory of Everything, you still wouldn't have an explanation for the universe. All you would have is a mathematical description of the behavior of a universe that you can't even account for.

Moreover, you keep referring to God as "him" or "He", and this indicates that you are thinking in terms of an anthropomorphic egotistical sentient God not unlike the Biblical God. A God that exists totally separate from the universe and actually created the universe. That type of God is highly unlikely.

I don't think god's a he or a she. I don't think it's an it or a them. I don't know or believe that it's anything.

Well, I will grant you that our conversation on this matter is rather useless since before you could even begin to discuss the issue properly you would need to understand mystical theories of a God that are compatible with all known science first. Such mystical theories exist. But that's a whole other topic as well.

We're going off-topic and getting too hung up on semantics. If you want to discuss how science won't progress further in the future, start your own thread on the subject, but until then, please provide evidence for how this "sentient god" interacts with nature.

We are the evidence that this sentient God exists. And again, this may require that you understand various Eastern mystical views of God before you can understand why we are the evidence for God.