Yes Justin, I am a physicist, although mathematics is my first real love. So any article on science, and especially science and religion, gets my particular interest.

Regarding the first, religion is founded on faith. Faith is a belief in the absence of proof, and preferably in the absence of the possibility of proof.

If science can enlighten us with regards to a phenomena then that phenomena does not respect an article of faith.

Does God exist? … it depends upon *your* faith. No one can know, they must believe. The choice is yours.

Did evolution occur? Absolutely. The evidence that life evolved is astounding.

Believing in something that is in contradiction with the empirical evidence isn’t faith, its blind faith

I try my best not to make this so. I am willing to accept a god on faith. I don’t need proof. I really don’t. I do not believe in the Christian God because of the evidence contrary to what I would expect of an authoritative message from him, namely The Bible.

Justin, it is not merely a difference of opinion. What you are doing, by claiming that nature and intuition gives evidence of a transcendent Christian God, is giving attributes to a creator, that you admit must be unknowable, via intuition. That is nothing more than making stuff up.

I checked out the article on your link to godandscience.org, and I gotta tell you it was not very well done. A few faulty scientific bullets, a theistic rehash of Abbot’s Flatland, and an invitation to accept Christ to avoid the threat of eternal damnation is not very informative.

Justin, the article you cite makes two huge mistakes. The first is that it really twists Scripture into ways it was never intended. For instance, 2Peter 3:8 does not imply that God stands outside of our spacetime domain with the ability to stretch and pull time like a piece of taffy. Christians must always re-interpret scripture to meet their needs as science and culture changes around them.

Second is the misunderstanding of the extra spatial dimensions proposed by String theory (not quantum or general relativity as the article claims).

When string theory was first proposed and made popular in the 70s, the idea of extra dimensions was quickly seized upon by Christian apologists, who, in my opinion, had little idea what was meant by the idea. They claim that these extra dimensions are the realm of the supernatural, and that they cannot be perceived by us in our 3 dimensional world. Much like Mr and Mrs Flat, who can only see Mr Cube as a square projected onto their flat plan, we can only perceive God as a simple projection of his true mega-dimensional self onto our 3 dimensional plane. From this higher realm, God can poke and prod our world as if we were fish in a bowl.

First, these extra dimensions are a result of the mathematics involved if string theory is used as a model for unifying the fundamental forces. *If* they exist, the extra spatial dimensions (either 10 or 11 total, depending on the math you use) are curled at the quantum level, and do not exist in our macro-level, just like any of the quantum rules of physics. According to recent experiments which used a torsion balance to test inverse square laws (which can only apply in a universe of 3 spatial dimensions), it has been confirmed that the extra spatial dimensions must be smaller than 44 micrometers.

D. J. Kapner et al., “Tests of the Gravitational Inverse-Square Law below the Dark-Energy Length Scale,” Physical Review Letters 98 (2007): 021101.

So what Christians are doing when they invoke the extra dimensional argument, is saying that God and the entire supernatural realm is confined to the quantum level. Talk about a misunderstanding! Is this how God interacts with us? On the subatomic level? I thought he stood *outside* of spacetime altogether? No, I just don’t see how those proposed extra spatial dimensions work as linking the supernatural realm with something scientific.

So the GodandScience article that you showed me gets these concepts really confused. I hope the Huston Smith book is a little more informed than this.

It is quite obvious that our differences arrise at the different perspectives from which we are coming. I believe that questions about the existence of God wouldn’t be so polarizing if we weren’t obsessed with certainty and objectivity.

Ancient civilizations had to be satisfied with guesswork to figure out how the universe functioned – anything that didn’t make sense could be attributed to supernatural powers. Today we have more tools for finding real answers to questions about nature, but the spirit world eludes our finest-tuned instruments. Probably no telescope will ever reveal the face of God in a nebula or supernova. Outside of our own hearts, we search in vain.

So then the question becomes: how can modern science lead us closer to God? It probably can’t [see my post], if we’re seeking concrete spiritual facts to support certain doctrines or cosmology. We will find answers, but the best lesson we can hope to learn from gazing at the skies or using the scientific method is one of humility and wonder.

For deeper spiritual meaning, and for resolving moral and social problems, science is not the answer. No, instead we must understand that the nature of God is non-empirical, and therefore the proper domain of theology. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value.

I will end our back-and-forth by providing a link that you may find of interest (it has to do with explaining the nature of God outside spacetime.)

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.php#n01

God Bless.

No I think they are irrelevant. Any thoughts or philosophical considerations into that realm which Is unknowable is no better than making stuff up, and making speculations with guesswork. The nature of a creator standing outside of spacetime falls into that category, as does any notion or bubble universes or multiverses. And most work best in science fiction novels.

What makes the nature of a creator (god) that stands outside of our physical standards in any way knowable? If your only answer is that he has revealed himself to us via The Bible, then we are in lots of trouble.

I may be totally off on my assessment of this, but I get a sense frusteration and anger from your replies. There is no need to be defensive as I am not trying to convert you, and the words I use carry no offensive agenda. If I am indeed correct, know that there is no need to get overly worked up. Have you ever heard of Stephen Covey’s “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”? It’s a great book/training course. I would recommend it to anyone.

I have no interest in self-help books. Do you always assume anger when people will disagree with you without wrapping it up in a nice package? I’m sorry, I simply disagree, and I see no reason to state it any other way than as plainly as possible.

just a thought. Although it may be unknowable what it is like outside space and time, it doesn’t make philosophical considerations and thoughts/theories about it irrelevant – unless of course we are approaching it from a scientific mindset (which I presume is where you’re coming from). If that’s the case, then I can see why you would have trouble with accepting human cognition about topics not subject to the scientific method.

Listen. We are by definition trapped in spacetime. That means there is no way for us to contact hypotethical things outside of it, using the scientific method or any other method. Any speculation will forever be speculation, and no speculation about “outside spacetime” is any more valid than any other.

Interesting take, but I don’t see any relevance. On a side note, according to definition, abstract numbers are “numbers used without application to things, as 6, 8, 10; but when applied to any thing, as 6 feet, 10 men [or oranges as I eluded to above], they become concrete.” I suppose then that the human ability to comprehend the ‘abstract-ness’ of numbers denounces any claim that God and/or religion is too “abstract” to understand or know.

It was in response to your “negative numbers are imaginary” attitude. Negative numbers are no more imaginary than positive numbers, and imaginary numbers are a whole different beast.

In reply to: “Bullshit. It does not follow at all.”….

Cowpoop. It does.

Oh no.

However, if we perceive of God as outside of the three-dimensional world that we know, then such a question cannot apply. If God is a being that is unlimited and infinite in time (outside time), and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question.

You have yet to establish the connection between an infinite being and non-causation. Also, if you somehow to connect the two, you have just made a creator redundant, since the universe is infinite.

In reference to the scientific method applied to religion, I again point to Huston Smith. He explains it with more eloquance than I, and he also readily admits it to be a loose correlation. I strongly encourage anyone to read “Why Religion Matters” (by Huston Smith). I put a link to the book at the bottom of this post.

Perhaps. I have a feeling I wouldn’t agree, but I don’t have access to the book, so I’ll leave it there.

HIS –
your reply has a very healthy perspective, I appreciate your honesty you have with yourself in your assessments. To answer your question, I guess you could say I am talking about the God in a Christian sense [as that is my beleifs], although not the tenets of Christianity – I would say my approach is more of a “theist” approach than a Christian one.

Hi Simen,

I may be totally off on my assessment of this, but I get a sense frusteration and anger from your replies. There is no need to be defensive as I am not trying to convert you, and the words I use carry no offensive agenda. If I am indeed correct, know that there is no need to get overly worked up. Have you ever heard of Stephen Covey’s “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”? It’s a great book/training course. I would recommend it to anyone.

just a thought. Although it may be unknowable what it is like outside space and time, it doesn’t make philosophical considerations and thoughts/theories about it irrelevant – unless of course we are approaching it from a scientific mindset (which I presume is where you’re coming from). If that’s the case, then I can see why you would have trouble with accepting human cognition about topics not subject to the scientific method.

“Negative numbers are abstract objects, just as positive numbers, and so in a sense all numbers are imaginary, in the same way as the abstract concept “car” is imaginary. ”

Interesting take, but I don’t see any relevance. On a side note, according to definition, abstract numbers are “numbers used without application to things, as 6, 8, 10; but when applied to any thing, as 6 feet, 10 men [or oranges as I eluded to above], they become concrete.” I suppose then that the human ability to comprehend the ‘abstract-ness’ of numbers denounces any claim that God and/or religion is too “abstract” to understand or know.

In reply to: “Bullshit. It does not follow at all.”….

Cowpoop. It does.

In reference to the scientific method applied to religion, I again point to Huston Smith. He explains it with more eloquance than I, and he also readily admits it to be a loose correlation. I strongly encourage anyone to read “Why Religion Matters” (by Huston Smith). I put a link to the book at the bottom of this post.

Anyway, have a great Tuesday everyone!

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Religion-Matters-Spirit-Disbelief/dp/0060671025/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3054399-6345237?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180446165&sr=8-1

Many believe that the only way to perceive the world around them is with the five senses. Yet, I tell you that no one has ever seen a thought. No one has ever seen a feeling and we still believe them to exist (no, seeing neuron activity doesn’t count)

I’m sorry, that’s like saying “No one has seen an eye (no, seeing cells doesn’t count)”. It presupposes that thoughts are something else than neaurons. This assumption is unfounded. It is wrong.

Scientific method can’t explain existential meanings. Individuals try to use scientific method to learn more about faith and God. I will tell you right now that if you are waiting to physically see, touch, smell, taste, or hear God, He will never be revealed to you.

I’m sorry, but those are the senses nature God has given me, so those are the senses I use. If God cannot be discovered by the senses, then God is but an illusion of your mind.

The skeptic will say, “Why not use the scientific method? The scientific method teaches us about everything we know. It is the ultimate tool for knowledge.” Well, there are a variety of reasons. Consider that God exists outside of the physical world that we know; He is outside of time.

Next time you talk to God outside of space and time, be sure to give my greetings to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who’s outside of time and space as well. You see, outside of time and space doesn’t make sense. If there is such a place, then it is fundamentally outside of our understanding, and we cannot say a damn thing about what’s there. We’re confined to spacetime, and whatever is outside if such a concept is even coherent is unknowable.

This is a hard concept to grasp for many, but you actually deal with this concept all the time. For instance, you can physically take three apples away from a pile of five. However, it is not possible or comprehendible for one to take five apples away from a pile of three.

So?

How do we solve this dilemma? We make the problem part of the answer [3-5, 2-4, 1-3, 0-2], and therefore our answer becomes negative two (-2). Negative numbers don’t exist, they are imaginary – but they help people such as engineers solve very real problems every single day.

This is so wrong. Totally, fundamentally. Both the analogy and the text. Negative numbers are abstract objects, just as positive numbers, and so in a sense all numbers are imaginary, in the same way as the abstract concept “car” is imaginary. But negative numbers are no more or less fiction than positive numbers. Imaginary numbers, on the other hand, are numbers of the form x + y*i, where i is the square root of -1.

This analogy explains the reason why God was never created (I really hate when people ask this cliché question).

No, it doesn’t. The question is valid. It’s just as much cliché to say God exists. I guess you won’t discard that cliché.

However, if we perceive of God as outside of the three-dimensional world that we know, then such a question cannot apply. If God is a being that is unlimited and infinite in time (outside time), and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question.

Bullshit. It does not follow at all.

The question is like asking someone to draw a four-sided triangle – the terminology is self-contradictory. God exists outside of time and space, and if He is the Creator of time and space, He obviously was not created.

Does not follow. You haven’t derived a contradiction, you’ve asserted that there is one and left it at that.

What the scientific method can do is give immense support for God. If you are familiar at all with astronomical constants, you will see that the slightest change in any of the very delicate variables would mean life as we know it would not exist. These constants exist all over the universe. For instance, if the tilt of the earth were just a few degrees one way or the other, climates would be too extreme. If Jupiter were further from the Earth, and not as big, then it wouldn’t suck in the great number of asteroids and comets that would otherwise crash into the Earth. If the ratio of protons to electrons formation was less, electromagnetism would dominate gravity which would prevent galaxy, star, and planet formation.

You’re working from false premises. It is impossible to estimate the likelihood of the constants being as they are, because we do not know whether they could ahve been different. For all we know, the probability of these constants was 1. We don’t know.

If you want to use some of the tenets from the scientific method in regards to God and religion, you sort of can. One driving force behind the scientific method is multiple tests of a particular phenomenon. Scientists will test over and over in order to develop explanations. This facet of the method can be applied to God (religion). Since the beginning of time, man has always had the notion that there is something greater than himself. If one looks at the prominence of religion and how it has re-occurred time and time again, the most intelligent of individuals familiar with the scientific method will admit that it is very possible we are on to something.

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, and hence not valid in either logic or science.

Similar and re-occurring results increase likelihood and probability. Again, before anyone begins to waste countless minutes in trying to rebuttal this correlation of religion to the scientific method, know that this is a loose utilization. I should also note that this very concept is explained in great detail (and more effectively) by Huston Smith.

There are no similar and re-occurring results! Be honest here. For the likelihood of religion to be correct to increase, the predictions of religion must re-occur again and again. They don’t. Religion dares not subject itself to science by making falsifiable predictions. As I said, a re-occurrence of belief is not evidence. It’s not science. It’s illogic, unscientific, and stupid to believe that a widely held belief is any more likely to be true than one that is not.