Science discovers God

The Force…
Has many names as we travel the cultures of the world. We first learn this when we study The Works of Sir Joseph Campbell.
Several influential people throughout modern history have said or referenced to that science and religion complement each other and should not be in conflict. Personally, I believe that faith and science are both gifts from the Force and therefor are in harmony with existence.

This is an interesting video explaining how one person’s interpretation of what science has discovered confirms the existence of the Biblical God. Or, as I prefer to think of it, the Force.




I thought it was neat. Of course, you are free to believe what ever you like.

That is a massive, steaming, pile of justification, which misses the point...

Faith underpinned by science isn't.

Science doesn't want or need faith...

Water is not food, but I need both to survive.

"That's the biblical definition of God"

Um... unless I'm vastly misreading my Bible, no it's not. God supposedly does(/is) much more than just "kick off the universe".

Something predates the big bang. There are many theories as to what that might be. One is indeed God. If you choose to stop looking whenever God might be considered a possibility (ie always, in every situation), you'll find a great deal of evidence for God.

This is the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Because we don't understand something, it must be god.

I don't have the time, interest, or patience to explain all things empirically to myself. Gets in the way of living. That which I can live with out knowing I ascribe to something beyond my understating. I call it the Force.

I don't tell everyone else they have to call it the Force, though, and I certainly don't let what I don't know be the driving force behind my politics.

i like the line of thought that he travels and to a great extent, i agree with it

even as i agree however, i also have to raise a major objection: when people say "god", and especially when they say "god of the bible" there are a lot of implications associated with that which go a great deal beyond what he talks about here

he does nothing to confirm the covenant with abraham, or the significance of jesus, or heaven or hell, or really any of the ideas that christians believe (and he said "bible" and not "torah" or "quran")

essentially, he has made a case that powerful forces exist as basic components of reality

which i agree with, and i think that ancient peoples recognized this in their way, and used religion as the means to express it. but it does not at all make the case that moses parted the sea or that noah put two of every animal on a ship

i enjoyed the video and i do believe he is on to something important, but when he says "science proves the biblical god" i think he is being very loose with language

much more than any scientist has a right to be, imo

If there was nothing before the big bang how did the "laws of nature" exist? The laws of nature, by their definition, exist in time and space. If some "force" existed then there was not nothing. If "not nothing" existed, ie - some force, that created the universe why does he automatically get to call it "God of the Bible"? At best we can only conclude that it is "some force". It is a complete fallacy to make the leap of faith to calling it God and an even greater fallacy to call it God of the Bible!

tzb wrote: Something predates the big bang.

If by predate you mean that something happened (since existence in a synthetic sense is inseparable from happening) at a time that is before the big bang, then I'd ask, if I may, for a citation on that. As far as I am aware there is thus far no evidence indicating that there was a point in time that was before the big bang event. For all we know, to predate the big bang could be impossible.

There are many theories as to what that might be. One is indeed God.

A theory usually is some kind of model designed to correlate facts and predict observations. Before we can have a theory of what might have predated the big bang, we need to establish that it is at all possible to do so, let alone that anything in fact did. Now, of course nothing prohibits us from choosing to employ the God label for any such thing, but given the rather heavy loads of baggage and connotations of that label, it may not be the smartest choice until we know that any subset of the attributes commonly associated with the label do apply to what ever predated the big bang... if anything did... or could.

If you choose to stop looking whenever God might be considered a possibility (ie always, in every situation), you'll find a great deal of evidence for God.

If by God you mean a non-natural being of any further narrowing description and by evidence for it you mean any non-empty set of facts that is either positively indicative of or exclusively compatible with the existence of God where existence denotes a theoretically identifiable relation between the subject and something else that has a dynamic component of any kind, then no, there is no evidence for God nor could there be.

Now, to address the OP...

Wescli Wardest wrote: The Force…
Has many names as we travel the cultures of the world. [sic] We first learn this when we study The Works of Sir Joseph Campbell.

That's one interpretation. I do not recall Mr. Campbell ever saying that. As I understood him he observed that some struggles people have are shared among all people throughout all times and cultures, and thus to cope with them and to prepare their young for them they tend to produce similar kinds of narratives. Those narratives are true in the sense that they all reflect fundamental aspects of "the human condition", if you will. I'm not positive Campbell says that the storytellers are necessarily aware of that and thus are consciously collectively referring to the same thing. Indeed, given the constant unstopping conflicts between different faith tribes throughout the ages, I'd assert quite the opposite.

Several influential people throughout modern history have said or referenced to that science and religion complement each other and should not be in conflict.

Yes, they have. We can discuss each and every instance of that, provided specific names and citations and context. There are certainly usages of the words science, religion, complement, and conflict that render the statement plausible. Other usages render it false. Absent further clarification, I don't know how anybody could evaluate a sentence like that.

As for the video, that's been around for a while, I'm not even positive this is the first time it came up at TOTJO. Since you aren't reiterating any specific statement, I cannot take them as coming from you and I wouldn't like to be in a position of responding to something nobody here said. Suffice it to say that there is a flood of video responses to this one on YouTube to where I doubt I'd even have more to contribute. On top of that whenever I google him, I only find his apologetics books and talks and hardly ever anything scientific, and... well, I'll put it like this:
I was delighted to find that Mr. Schroeder is yet another of those geniuses to reiterate the hf=mc² nonsense we recently saw in a reference in a recent telepathy thread . At that point I stopped searching any further. Despicable though I find it, I must applaud the man for at least having the dedication to actually earn a PhD in physics, and at MIT, no less, only to lie about the subject so blatantly to his readers...

First, I have read more than just the prescribed material in the IP. So granted, the particular instance I am thinking about may not have been covered in it. But… Sir Campbell discusses the similarities found in religions throughout the world and across differing cultures. He never discredits any of them and in interviews has claimed to not only believe the god described in the Cristian mythology but in all the gods of all the mythologies.

Campbell recalled that as he emerged from a banquet he was approached by a member of a religious cult who asked, “Do you believe in God?” Campbell replied, “Young man, I don’t think you know the implications of that question. I’m acquainted with hundreds of gods. But I think I know the one you’re talking about. I believe in Him, too.”
The cultist then asked, “Sir, are you an atheist?” and Campbell replied, “I don’t think you can call a person an atheist who believes in as many gods as I do.”


One I have posted on this site before…
“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.”
~Martin Luther King, Jr.

And there are several scientist that believe in “God” if not some kind of God. Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger and John Eccles to make an extremely short list which only names a few. And I have seen or read many documentaries or papers where the same opinion as Martin Luther King Junior expressed is cited as being credible or true by others. I cannot think of them all right now.

As most of us who have studied the logical fallacies knows, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is always easier to tear down and/or try to disprove that which we do not agree with or understand. It is much more difficult a task to ask how can it be or look for the truth to something.

Like I said in the original post, “you are free to believe whatever you like.” And that is multi reasoned… some will not believe, listen to and even give credence to anything that is not founded in, based or acceptable to their root belief system, no matter what that system may be. None of what was posted actually proves anything. Also, like I said, I thought it was neat. Not to be confused with definitive. And, some are just completely against the idea of any kind of “god” like being, force, whatever and will argue against the very notion. For all these people, you are free to believe whatever you like as well.

it's def obvious that we all "Believe" (Meaning we don't KNOW) something different about creation and the start of the universe. But, in everyone's basic understanding...things came into existence. Whether it was intelligent or simply just a happening...whatever it was. Humans provide a definition and/even a name. I'm understanding that no matter who or what organization expresses their idea of the matter...It has no effect on the "Unknown" truth of what happened.

As long as the principles that I apply in my life continue to work, I won't debate on how anyone chooses to believe. They can pass a law that states the start of the universe was started by a space fish named Mississippi. The life application for me won't change. Therefore, anyone can have the right to call it God, Allah, Galactus, Zues, The Force or Master Blaster... it's no distraction to how i discovered how to apply lifes principles.