Does God exist?

[otseng]

Does God exist? What reasons are there to believe that God is real?


Admin note:
This thread used to be called "Does God exist or not?"
I have renamed this thread to be "Does God exist?"
Another thread has been created to discuss God's nonexistence, "Disproving God".

[bernee51]

Einstein also said:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]


There is some order in the universe now - there must be otherwise we would not be here to observe it. It is postulated that this so called order has not always been there but is emergent. Chaos, however, is also still evident. Supernovae, for example, would strike me as fairll chaotic.

Order does give some suggestion for the case of a creator. That is a safe statement.

Safe certainly - but by no means definative. Order could be part of the natural progression of evolution - a move towards greater complexity, for example. By evolution I mean the evolution of the universe to the point it is at now. And it is continuing to evolve.

We should be considering all the possibilities instead of denying some of them unilaterally.

I'm not sure they are being denied unilaterally. I think what happens is that other evidence, in addition to the apparent 'order' is sought - and perhaps not found.

[Soxors]

So, does the universe more closely suggest: a) chaos or b) order?

b) ... Bingo! And therefore that order gives some evidence of a designer. (don't confuse evidence for proof) In fact, it's very strong evidence.

Do you care to elucidate on why your view on this is more substantial than Einstein's?

You're suggesting that it makes more sense that there would be a god because of the intricacy of the universe.

Which is more likely?

A. There is a being with the power to create an intricate universe that is, has been, and will be.
B. An intricate universe appeared randomly.

There is no logical answer to this question, and no way to prove either side.

[Cathar1950]

What is Chaos? Lack of order?
That seems like it would take more energy to ensure no order then order. Order has no problem with the second law of thermodynamics if there is a source of energy outside the system. There seems to be both Chaos and Order and I am pretty sure they balance out.

[Greatest I Am]

What is Chaos? Lack of order?
That seems like it would take more energy to ensure no order then order. Order has no problem with the second law of thermodynamics if there is a source of energy outside the system. There seems to be both Chaos and Order and I am pretty sure they balance out.

Mathematician Stephen Hawkins, if memory serves me, states that the more order you bring to a system, the more disorder you bring to another system.

I'm not sure just how this comes about but a balanced system is always the end result.

Perhaps someone who has his book, I lent mine and it never came back, can enlighten us on how this works.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

If God did not exists.

God was first invented by ancient shaman and prophet.

Then as now anyone who claims anything has to prove his claim.

Because of the difficulty of proving non corporeal or spirit entities, one would think that it would be unlikely that anyone would voluntarily take that position because of the hardship that always follows including "in those days" death.

This begs the question of why anyone in their right mind would choose to stand out for ridicule etc. when they realize that there is a God.

Further one would need to answer why these people would lie to their people.
We need to show how a lie would bring them profit. Especially when death might be the penalty for the telling of this information. They can die for telling the truth. They can die for telling a lie.
Why then if they can die either way would they even speak at all.

If a lie does not profit, why say it?

Regards
DL

[Cathar1950]

If a lie does not profit, why say it?

I guess you will have to ask people that followed Jim Jones or the Heaven's gate group.
Many more jews died for their faith and beliefs during the first few centuries of this era then Christians.
Some of the church fathers admit to doing anything to promote the kingdom.
You also fail to take into account that even a lie can be believed.
It is not a good defence.

[QED]

What is Chaos? Lack of order?
That seems like it would take more energy to ensure no order then order. Order has no problem with the second law of thermodynamics if there is a source of energy outside the system. There seems to be both Chaos and Order and I am pretty sure they balance out.

Mathematician Stephen Hawkins, if memory serves me, states that the more order you bring to a system, the more disorder you bring to another system.

I'm not sure just how this comes about but a balanced system is always the end result.

Perhaps someone who has his book, I lent mine and it never came back, can enlighten us on how this works.

All these musing come under the umbrella of "conservation". For the second time today I'm going to quote from a remarkably topical paper written by Professor Victor Stenger.

The standard model of elementary particles and fields has, perhaps for the first time in scientific history, given us a powerful theory that is consistent with all experiments performed to-date. More than that, in developing the standard model physicists have gained significant new insights into the nature of the so-called laws of nature.

Prior to these recent developments, the physicist's conception of the laws of nature was pretty much that of most lay people: those laws were assumed to be rules for the behavior of matter and energy that are part of the very structure of the universe, laid out at the creation. However, in the past several decades we have gradually come to understand that what we call "laws of physics" are basically our own descriptions of certain symmetries observed in nature and the way in which these symmetries, in some cases, happen to be broken. The particular laws we have identified do not require a supernatural agent to bring them into being.

The most powerful of the laws of physics are the great conservation principles of energy, momentum, angular momentum, charge, and other quantities that are measured in fundamental interactions. These apply whenever a system of bodies is sufficiently isolated from its environment. For over a century now, physicists have known that whenever their description of the motion of a body does not depend on a particular generalized coordinate q, then the generalized momentum p conjugate to that coordinate is conserved. That generalized coordinate can be a spatial coordinate, time, or an angular coordinate. The corresponding conjugate momentum can be a component of linear momentum, energy, or a component of angular momentum. The conjugate momenta act as generators of the transformations made along or around particular coordinate axes. This description applies in both classical and quantum mechanics.

Thus, time translational symmetry implies energy conservation. Space translational symmetry implies momentum conservation. Rotational symmetry implies angular momentum conservation. Furthermore, the Lorentz invariance of special relativity follows as an expression of rotational symmetry in four-dimensional spacetime.

Now consider the objects in the universe. Unless acted on by some outside agent, they will behave the same regardless of where we position the origin of coordinate axes used to place them in spacetime, or how we orient those axes. It follows, from their very definitions, that energy, momentum, angular momentum, and any other quantities of the type that are conjugate to these coordinates will be conserved. Furthermore, all of special relativity (time dilation, Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, E = mc2) are explained "naturally."

In other words, the universal conservation "laws" are exactly what will occur in an isolated universe with no outside agent acting. They derive from global symmetries, such as space translation and time translation. Only a violation of these laws would imply an outside agent. The data so far are consistent with the absence of an agent.

This is to my mind a thoroughly compelling argument for the universe being self-contained and self-organizing. There is absolutely no suggestion that thermodynamics or any other conservation laws necessitate any external assistance.

We have seen that the conservation laws correspond to global symmetries which require no outside agent. The total chaos that was likely the state of the universe at the earliest definable time possessed space translation, time translation, rotation, and all the other symmetries that result when a system depends on none of the corresponding coordinates. For these we clearly have no need to introduce the uneconomical hypothesis of external design.

[Greatest I Am]

What is Chaos? Lack of order?
That seems like it would take more energy to ensure no order then order. Order has no problem with the second law of thermodynamics if there is a source of energy outside the system. There seems to be both Chaos and Order and I am pretty sure they balance out.

Mathematician Stephen Hawkins, if memory serves me, states that the more order you bring to a system, the more disorder you bring to another system.

I'm not sure just how this comes about but a balanced system is always the end result.

Perhaps someone who has his book, I lent mine and it never came back, can enlighten us on how this works.

All these musing come under the umbrella of "conservation". For the second time today I'm going to quote from a remarkably topical paper written by Professor Victor Stenger.

The standard model of elementary particles and fields has, perhaps for the first time in scientific history, given us a powerful theory that is consistent with all experiments performed to-date. More than that, in developing the standard model physicists have gained significant new insights into the nature of the so-called laws of nature.

Prior to these recent developments, the physicist's conception of the laws of nature was pretty much that of most lay people: those laws were assumed to be rules for the behavior of matter and energy that are part of the very structure of the universe, laid out at the creation. However, in the past several decades we have gradually come to understand that what we call "laws of physics" are basically our own descriptions of certain symmetries observed in nature and the way in which these symmetries, in some cases, happen to be broken. The particular laws we have identified do not require a supernatural agent to bring them into being.

The most powerful of the laws of physics are the great conservation principles of energy, momentum, angular momentum, charge, and other quantities that are measured in fundamental interactions. These apply whenever a system of bodies is sufficiently isolated from its environment. For over a century now, physicists have known that whenever their description of the motion of a body does not depend on a particular generalized coordinate q, then the generalized momentum p conjugate to that coordinate is conserved. That generalized coordinate can be a spatial coordinate, time, or an angular coordinate. The corresponding conjugate momentum can be a component of linear momentum, energy, or a component of angular momentum. The conjugate momenta act as generators of the transformations made along or around particular coordinate axes. This description applies in both classical and quantum mechanics.

Thus, time translational symmetry implies energy conservation. Space translational symmetry implies momentum conservation. Rotational symmetry implies angular momentum conservation. Furthermore, the Lorentz invariance of special relativity follows as an expression of rotational symmetry in four-dimensional spacetime.

Now consider the objects in the universe. Unless acted on by some outside agent, they will behave the same regardless of where we position the origin of coordinate axes used to place them in spacetime, or how we orient those axes. It follows, from their very definitions, that energy, momentum, angular momentum, and any other quantities of the type that are conjugate to these coordinates will be conserved. Furthermore, all of special relativity (time dilation, Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, E = mc2) are explained "naturally."

In other words, the universal conservation "laws" are exactly what will occur in an isolated universe with no outside agent acting. They derive from global symmetries, such as space translation and time translation. Only a violation of these laws would imply an outside agent. The data so far are consistent with the absence of an agent.

This is to my mind a thoroughly compelling argument for the universe being self-contained and self-organizing. There is absolutely no suggestion that thermodynamics or any other conservation laws necessitate any external assistance.

We have seen that the conservation laws correspond to global symmetries which require no outside agent. The total chaos that was likely the state of the universe at the earliest definable time possessed space translation, time translation, rotation, and all the other symmetries that result when a system depends on none of the corresponding coordinates. For these we clearly have no need to introduce the uneconomical hypothesis of external design.

No designer was implied.

The question was about chaos v/s order.
Or did I miss something?

Regards
DL

[Cathar1950]

Makes sense to me QED.
That is why i appreciate people like Hartshorn that try to develope a natural theology.
Of course it eliminates much of the pet views of God that many hold.
Sometimes we need to look at the attributes of God that are so bitterly defended and realise some of it is just the bragging of the worshipers.

[QED]

No designer was implied.

The question was about chaos v/s order.
Or did I miss something?

It is common to see a fall-back argument for the existence of design from the starting point of all the abundant order in the universe. The initial thermodynamic argument is most easily shown to be a predictable consequence of inflationary cosmology. But then it is often retorted that the very existence of a physical law implies a law-giver with an aim in mind. This is refuted by the nature of spontaneous symmetry breaking as outlined in Stenger's paper. As this topic is titled "Does God exist?" I thought it a might be a good place to bring this up.