Het bewijs dat God bestaat

• 

  Eliyahu

  17-12-2012 18:36

  Gepost door: Sfred, ()

  Datum: 17 december 2012 17:20

  Ja kom nu eens met je bewijsvoering dat er een god bestaat, ik wacht….

  Bs'd

  Er is nu sterk onweerlegbaar wetenschappelijk bewijs dat God bestaat. Het heet “het antropisch principe”.

  De natuurwetten die het heelal besturen, en de opbouw van het heelal, die moeten om leven mogelijk te maken, extreem nauwkeurig afgesteld zijn. Zo vreselijk nauwkeurig dat het onmogelijk is om te zeggen dat het heelal door puur toeval gevormd is, door een ongeleide explosie.

  Wetenschappers ontdekken steeds meer en meer waarden die extreem exact afgesteld moeten zijn om leven in het heelal mogelijk te maken.

  In 1961 waren er nog maar twee van deze constanten bekend, waarvan de meest kritieke de verhouding was tussen de zwaartekracht en de electromagnetische kracht. Als die varieert voor slechts 1 deel in 10^40 (dat is 10 tot de macht 40, dat is een 1 met 40 nullen, dat is 10.000 triljoen triljoen triljoen) dan is er geen leven mogelijk.

  Vandaag de dag staat het aantal waardes van kosmische constanten die zeer nauwkeurig afgesteld zijn op het mogelijk maken van leven, (elke vorm van leven) op 38.

  Hiervan is de meest kritische de ruimte-energiedichtheid. De waarde daarvan kan niet meer variëren dan 1 deel op 10^120, want dan zijn de planeten en sterren die nodig zijn voor leven niet meer mogelijk.

  Om enig idee te krijgen van de grootte van deze getallen, even iets over het universum wat wij kunnen waarnemen. Het heeft een doorsnede van zo'n 156 miljard lichtjaar, dat is ongeveer 1.500.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 km. Het bevat ongeveer 50.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 sterren, verdeeld over zo'n 80 miljard sterrenstelsels. Het totale aantal atomen hierin wordt geschat op 10^80.

  De kans voor ons universum om te worden zoals het geworden is, zodat er leven in mogelijk is, ligt op ongeveer 1 op 10^173.

  Voor meer engelstalige informatie over dat onderwerp kijk hier: http://www.reasons.org/scientists/anthropic-principle-precise-plan-humanity

  Een wiskundige, Borel, heeft berekend dat een gebeurtenis die een kans heeft om te gebeuren van niet meer dan 1 op 10^50, dat dat nooit zal gebeuren, dit ongeacht de hoeveel tijd ter beschikking, en ongeacht het aantal pogingen.

  Zoals iedereen kan zien, de kansen dat de afstemming van het heelal bij toeval zo is dat leven mogelijk is, is zeer vele malen kleiner dan die ondergrens van 1 op 10^50.

  Betreffende dit antropische principe schreef één van de grootste wetenschappers die nu leven, Stephen Hawking: “De meeste waardes zouden universums veroorzaken die, alhoewel ze zeer mooi zouden zijn, niemand zouden kunnen bevatten om die schoonheid te bewonderen. Men kan dit zien als bewijs voor een goddelijk doel in de schepping van het heelal en de keuze van de natuurwetten, of als ondersteuning voor het sterke antropische principe.”

  “Een korte geschiedenis van de tijd”, door Stephen Hawking, blz 139.

  “Het is zeer moeilijk om te verklaren waarom het universum begonnen is op precies de manier waarop het begonnen is, behalve als de daad van een God die van plan was om wezens zoals ons te scheppen.” Idem blz 140

  Dus daar is het, het wetenschappelijke bewijs dat God bestaat.
• 

  Eliyahu

  17-12-2012 18:37

  Bs'd

  According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so “finely-tuned,” and so many “coincidences” have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

  In fact, this “fine-tuning” is so pronounced, and the “coincidences” are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind.

  Many scientists have come to conclude that the universe was brought into existence intentionally.

  Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the “fine-tuning” and conclude that the universe is “too contrived” to be a chance event.

  In a BBC science documentary, “The Anthropic Principle,” some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.

  Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

  If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature – like the charge on the electron – then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

  Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

  If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

  Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

  “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife- edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life – almost contrived – you might say a ‘put-up job’.”

  According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big

  Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon.

  When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the “blast-furnaces” of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous “fortunate” one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful “adjustments” had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

  Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

  A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.

  Adds Dr. David D. Deutch:

  If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.

  UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE OF FINE-TUNING

  Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning.

  The August '97 issue of “Science” (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled “Science and God: A Warming Trend?” Here is an excerpt:

  The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life – such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars – also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

  In his best-selling book, “A Brief History of Time”, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as “remarkable.”

  “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very

  beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

  Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of “a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)” (ibid. p. 125).

  Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of “Genesis and the Big Bang” and “The Science of Life” was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following examples:

  1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal “Scientific American”, reflects on how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial

  conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

  Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

  One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning – The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.

  This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

  000000000000000000,but instead:100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

  000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

  the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.

  2) Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:

  The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.

  3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

  Penrose continues,

  Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universe – and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure – we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

  Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.

  It is appropriate to complete this section on “fine tuning” with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:

  To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, “How could it have ever been otherwise?”
• 

  Eliyahu

  17-12-2012 18:38

  Bs'd

  Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (2)

  George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

  Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”. (4)

  Paul Davies: "The laws … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose". (5)

  Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

  John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” (7)

  George Greenstein (astronomer): “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (8)

  Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” (9)

  Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” (10)

  Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance.” (11)

  Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” (12)

  Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” (13)

  Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (14)

  Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.” (15)

  Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

  Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”(17)

  Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one…. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” (18)

  Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him ." (19)

  Barry Parker (cosmologist): “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.” (20)

  Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.” (21)

  Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” (22)

  Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan.” (23)

  Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” (24)

  Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) “Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.” (25)

  Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.” (27)

  Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

  1. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.

  2.. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

  3. Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.

  4. Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.

  5. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.

  6. Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.

  7. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.

  8. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.

  9. Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.

  10. Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.

  11. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.

  12. Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.

  13. Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.

  14. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.

  15. Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57

  16. Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.

  17. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.

  18. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.

  19. Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant 20. supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.

  20. Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).

  21. Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, “The Creation”, U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.

  22. McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.

  23. Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com

  24. Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version).

  25. Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.
• 

  Sfred+

  17-12-2012 18:59

  Hahahaha, voor de rest alles goed? Om met een oud verhaaltje van je van 2 jaar terug hier te popieren Dit is helemaal geen God bestaat bewijs. Ik geloof niet dat jij Stephen Hawking goed begrepen heeft.

  De briljante natuurkundige en kosmoloog stelt dat het ontstaan van onze planeet een en het heelal een direct gevolg is van de natuur. Het universum kan zichzelf hebben gecreëerd als gevolg van de zwaartekracht. Eerder verklaarde Hawking nog dat de wetenschap het bestaan van god nooit helemaal kan uitsluiten. Daar komt hij nu dus op terug, in zijn boek The Grand Design haalt hij de theorie van Isaac Newton onderuit, die zegt dat het universum zonder de hand gods niet had kunnen ontstaan. . En je zoekt zelf maar uit waarom.

  Maar ga door jij ben beter dan Snip en Snap met je selectief knip en plak werk. :D:D
• 

  Boris

  17-12-2012 19:01

  eli ja hoor wordt door niemand serieus genomen op dit prikbord.
• 

  Eliyahu

  17-12-2012 19:03

  Sfred, Schreef:

  ——————————————————-

  > Hahahaha, voor de rest alles goed? Om met een oud

  > verhaaltje van je van 2 jaar terug hier te

  > popieren Dit is helemaal geen God bestaat bewijs.

  > Ik geloof niet dat jij Stephen Hawking goed

  > begrepen heeft.

  Bs'd

  Misschien had je een vuiltje in je oog en heb je het over het hoofd gezien, maar het is niet alleen S Hawking, maar zo een beetje de hele wetenschap die het antropisch principe onderschrijft.
• 

  Boris

  17-12-2012 19:05

  maar het is niet alleen S Hawking, maar zo een beetje de hele wetenschap die het antropisch principe onderschrijft.

  Volslagen flauwekul.
• 

  Eliyahu

  17-12-2012 19:08

  Boris Schreef:

  ——————————————————-

  > maar het is niet alleen S Hawking, maar zo een

  > beetje de hele wetenschap die het antropisch

  > principe onderschrijft.

  >

  > Volslagen flauwekul.

  Bs'd

  Als jij een hele reeks wetenschappers die zich uitlaten over het antropisch principe, o.a. in het peer reviewed scientific journal “Science” ‘volslagen flauwekul’ noemt, dan houdt het voor mij even op.
• 

  Boris

  17-12-2012 19:13

  Pseudo wetenschapers.
• 

  theo

  17-12-2012 19:13

  Ik zag het op de voorpagina van alle kranten stan en op het journaal heb ik het gezien.

  DE ontdekking van de laatste eeuwen.

  Iedere atheist is nu dankzij dit artikel gelovig geworden zo begreep ik.