Board index ‹ Science and the Bible

[Mentalist]

Are there anyways you believe science supports that God or Jesus exists/existed?

[jimwalton]

Yes, as a matter of fact.

• Science tells us that nothing spontaneously generates itself out of nothing—that everything that has a beginning is caused by something else outside of itself. Since the universe had a beginning, it was logically and scientifically caused by something outside of nature.
• Science tells us that the Big Bang was an explosive rapid expansion, and yet it has yielded order rather than chaos, life rather than chemicals and forces. Science shows us that very possible something was at play more than just impersonal and expansive forces.
• Science shows us that the universe and the Earth itself are remarkably tuned for life with a very delicate and virtually miraculous balance and definition by cosmological constants that could seem to lead in the direction of an intelligent source over unguided physical processes.
• Science leads scientists to seek to understand the purposes behind all the forces, progressions, and dynamics of the universe and life, and yet matter and chemicals are without purpose; they simply are. The fact that so much of science is geared toward purpose and purposes leads us in the direction of a purposeful source.
• Science tells us that informational data (such as DNA) always has a source in previous informational data. At present science cannot tell us how such informational systems arose. (Current RNA theories leave us hanging.) Science, then, would lead us to believe that it's possible, if not likely, that information data came from an intelligent and purposeful source.
• Science tells us that reasoning ability arose haphazardly through various natural selections and genetic mutations, and yet somehow yields truth and reason. It's somewhat of a self-defeating argument. The existence of our reasoning ability to the conclusion of truth claims would lead us in the direction that our reasoning ability came not from naturalism and materialism, but instead from an intelligent source.
• The existence of Jesus is corroborated by archaeological and historical sources outside of the Bible, a common scientific protocol for the recognition of historical events.

[Mentalist]

This was a very insightful and well written. Thank you for the information. You definitely opened my eyes to a perspective I hadn’t perceived before!

[Blue Screen]

> Science tells us that nothing spontaneously generates itself out of nothing—that everything that has a beginning is caused by something else outside of itself. Since the universe had a beginning, it was logically and scientifically caused by something outside of nature.

What are your thoughts on zero point energy?

[jimwalton]

Quantum research is an exciting and explosive discipline. It could open up new vistas of understanding for us, but in the process challenge well-established classical science. It's my understandings that zero-point energy is still a hypothetical, a theory being explored rather than anything in the hand. In addition, I get the idea that there's quite a bit of debate and disagreement about it. It's exciting to think about, but we have to wait for more to be discovered about it to know much. What comment it may eventually have on hypotheses about cosmological origins is yet to be seen. I applaud all the efforts to learn about it and understand it. It sounds like one of those life-changing discoveries if (1) it turns out to be true, (2) it broadens our knowledge about ontology before the Big Bang, and (3) it comes into our normals lives in computing and transportation, etc.

Fascinating stuff. We'll see where it takes us. We follow the evidence.

[Blue Screen]

Folks are working hard at understanding zero point energy, but I am fairly certain its existence is not questioned. Nothing is ironically the source of something.

[jimwalton]

I'm not an expert in QM.

This article (https://www.inverse.com/article/35077-wtf-is-zero-point-energy) claims "...but if true...", "If there’s as much energy in those fluctuations as some — though definitely not all — physicists believe", and "we can only guess how much energy is actually contained in the vacuum, with legendary physicists in fierce disagreement on this point." Still hypothesizing whether it's true or not.

Wikipedia says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy) "Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zero-point energy; in particular, the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention."

Britannica says (https://www.britannica.com/science/zero-point-energy), "Zero-point energy, vibrational energy that molecules retain even at the absolute zero of temperature. Temperature in physics has been found to be a measure of the intensity of random molecular motion, and it might be expected that, as temperature is reduced to absolute zero, all motion ceases and molecules come to rest. In fact, however, the motion corresponding to zero-point energy never vanishes. ... Zero-point energy results from principles of quantum mechanics, the physics of subatomic phenomena. Should the molecules ever come completely to rest, their component atoms would be precisely located and would simultaneously have precisely specified velocities, namely, of value zero. But it is an axiom of quantum mechanics that no object can ever have precise values of position and velocity simultaneously (see uncertainty principle); thus molecules can never come completely to rest."

I took all that to mean that it's still a work in progress, that zero-point energy is still only partially understood, still not confirmed, and is still only theoretical.

In any case, it seems to me (a non-expert) that even in zero-point energy mass and matter still exist (atoms and molecules). I'm open to learning.

So it's just possible that zero-point energy does not describe a situation where nothing is the source of something. I'll grant I don't know much about it.

[Blue Screen]

Really appreciate the tone and openness in your answer; there's a quality here that is often assumed absent from religious discourse.

My study of this and similar phenomenon in concert with my Christian upbringing, my "native religious language," and broader religious studies have led me into a pantheistic frame of understanding on God / existence.

[jimwalton]

I've spoken with others who have taken a pantheistic tack, and it seems to me to be a self-contradicting belief system, but I'm glad to talk about it.

By my understanding, implicit in the pantheistic worldview is the necessity that all is one and one is all, which at root is a denial of the existence of matter and a rejection of individual identity.

If all is one and one is all, there is no subject-object differentiation (no me and you, no here or there, no me as a person and stars up in the sky), because everything is one. But if this were true, we are left with a void of non-personality as ultimate reality. If there is no subject-object relationship, no particularity, and only a blank unity, then there is also no diversity or distinction basic to reality, which to me is not only untenable but impossible. We've taken away the basis and foundation for creation, knowledge (and therefore science), good, evil, morality, ethics, love, or anything else. All is one.

The problem with this concept is that it fails to adequately deal with reality and with the existence of what we know to be true: knowledge, love, good, and evil do exist in the real world. If god is the essence of all life-forms in creation, then wars, murder, rape, and cancer are all part of god. It ultimately makes everything meaningless and is a classic self-contradiction.

I'd love to talk about it with you. I just don't get how pantheism is logical or possible.

[Cookie Club]

I needed this conversation. Thank you.