Counting to God. Mathematician explains 7 major scientific reasons why there has to be God

  • What if science itself pointed to a reality outside of space and time, and a Designer behind all that exists?

    In Counting to God, Douglas Ell applies the lens of mathematical analysis to recent scientific discoveries, drawing startling conclusions. Ell uses scrupulous analysis and probability calculations to make a convincing case that the most advanced, sophisticated thinking in science not only allows for the idea of a designed universe, but encourages it.

    As the adage says, numbers don’t lie.

    An MIT graduate with a masters degree in theoretical mathematics, Ell surveys the current state of knowledge in seven areas where modern science supports the existence of God, including the history and physical laws of the universe and our planet, the origin and technology of life, evolution of species, and quantum physics.

    How careful is the science? Counting to God has been endorsed by a number of leading scientists, including the head of the physics department at MIT.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVK1L-bXr1Q&feature=share



    Like this post to subscribe to the topic.
  • @ Pierre

    I don't know where to start here, first off the information is not necessarily incorrect but is presented in a leading fashion and oversimplified.

    None of what he talks about are reasons why there has to be a God, it is still an assumption, an assumption I might add that is not connected to the information presented. None of that information requires a god concept in order for them to be valid, they all can be explained in terms which do not require a metaphysical being. In other words what has been done here is he's talked about a bunch of science in a simplified leading manner and then placed god beside it as if it has derived it, I call boloney.

    A bunch of science --> Expects individual to assume without proof -----> Therefore God

    I think he needs to be more explicit in step two for this to be taken with any kind of seriousness, he sounds like every other religious apologist except he has more science to bury his unproven assumption in.

  • Kate, I do not believe that you even watch the whole video. What you wrote is just ridiculous.

    What if science itself pointed to a reality outside of space and time, and a Designer behind all that exists?

    In Counting to God, Douglas Ell applies the lens of mathematical analysis to recent scientific discoveries, drawing startling conclusions. Ell uses scrupulous analysis and probability calculations to make a convincing case that the most advanced, sophisticated thinking in science not only allows for the idea of a designed universe, but encourages it.

    As the adage says, numbers don’t lie.

    An MIT graduate with a masters degree in theoretical mathematics, Ell surveys the current state of knowledge in seven areas where modern science supports the existence of God, including the history and physical laws of the universe and our planet, the origin and technology of life, evolution of species, and quantum physics.

    How careful is the science? Counting to God has been endorsed by a number of leading scientists, including the head of the physics department at MIT.

  • @Pierre

    You say what I wrote is ridiculous and yet you do nothing to address it. Instead what you do is repeat what you said at the beginning. This tells me two things, one you are not really here to have a genuine discussion since your first response was to attack when you are challenged, and second you did not really read what I wrote.

    I have taken several years of astrophysics in university and I watched enough of that video to see what it was doing especially since the beginning part of the lecture is about an area I have a lot of knowledge in. I stopped watching the point where it asserts that there are two answers to why things exist; these being

    It just is and always was

    or

    God

    I realized that this wasn't really a science talk, since no genuine science talk would create such an absurd false dichotomy. This is blatant religious apologetics. Science has nothing to say about whether or not there is a god, so putting a bunch of science up and claiming therefore god is frankly being a charlatan.

    As I said before you need to show how you go from (here is the science)|------->(The missing step)|------>(Here is god) If you do not explain how you get all the way from step 1 to step 3 then it is nothing but an unproven assertion.

  • Thank you for being honest and admitting that you did not really watch the video. This speaks volume on your real intention.

    The author gave many, many examples throughout this short 1/2 hour talk. His book covers the detail explanations.

    You had no intention to have a genuine discussion from the beginning and just attacked the character of this scientist who like you was an atheist before.

    You did not even answer even one of his argument and conclusion but accused me of doing what you are doing yourself.



    Updated 30 months ago by the author.
  • I will wait until this man has received his Nobel prize and had his assertions validated by peer review before I waste time watching a religious sermon disguised as science.

  • It's OK Jason, his book has been endorsed by a number of leading scientists, including the head of the physics experience. He is MIT graduate himself with a masters degree in theoretical mathematics and 30 years of experience. He knows about science and does not need your approval. You do not have to watch this video. God gave you freedom.



    Updated 30 months ago by the author.
  • Yeah, you can find scientists that will endorse anything. Until the scientific community accept his assertions, there's no reason for anyone to believe it. If there was anything to his calculations, he would have turned mathematics on its head and recieved praise from the entirety of his field, as well as every other thinking mind. As it stands, I've never heard of him, and practically every other scientist has ignored his "breakthrough".

  • I am going to go through this video, and show exactly where I have problems with it.

    Cosmology

    First as I already pointed out the creation of this dichotomy is disingenuous, that being why does anything exist? It is and always was or god.

    Why I have problems with this is pretty simple this vastly oversimplifies the study of cosmology, to stick god or an eternal cosmos in as the only options is not being honest. Cosmology has many different attempts to explain how the universe was created, some are not eternal and yet have no need for a god in them and attempt to use evidence in the universe to study the possibilities, for example Brane collision theory is an attempt to explain the big bang without the assumption of infinite universes. Or you know instead of creating this either or about why does anything exist he could be honest and admit the real third answer we do not know yet.

    His use of the term absolute nothingness, a philosophical concept which honestly has not been proven to exist in real life. When a physicist uses the term nothingness they are being very specific. Even empty space has vacuum energy so the statement that the universe comes from absolute nothingness is questionable; his dropping of this term in the lecture says volumes about what he is setting up. He says the big bang theory is a theory that the universe was created in a single instant by absolute nothingness, this is incorrect. To talk about nothingness before the big bang is like saying you are going further north once you pass the north pole. The big bang is a point where time is also supposed to have started so to say that it was ‘created from’ implies a temporal assumption. The big bang does not say this Doug Ell says this with no proof, it is a mischaracterization of big bang theory.

    Fine tuning

    First off lets start with the idea that the universe has 3 dimensions of space, this is not as perfect as Doug implies. There are many theories in the physics community which argue that there are more then 3 spacial dimensions, string theory requires the assumptions of many extra compacted dimensions. Again this is all so simplified and leading. The assumption that the constants in the universe are fine tuned for life? really so that is why space can kill you in seconds and why space between stars is so enormous, just perfect for life? I don’t think so I know for a fact there have been studies that show that some of these constants can be flexed and you still get possibilities for life. For example lifting from Wikipedia;

    “Fred Adams has investigated the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist.”

    So some constants allow for changes in range, much like we can have many different possibilities of finding planets that can support our kind of life around different stars, at different distances and so on. Going even further he takes no account of his definition of life. What does he mean when he says fine tuned for life? find tuned for life as we understand it? and who is to say our understanding or type of life is the only type of life that can exist or be in the universe?

    Further in the video he says that in order to believe in a multiverse you have to believe in a infinite amount of multiverses. Another example of his dichotomizing, again creating an either or position with no real reason for it to be so. He does not establish any reasons why this either/or position is required other then if you do posit infinite amounts of universes it must have a initial cause. that is not sufficient enough reason to create such a straight jacking either/or. He does not sufficiently establish the necessity for this assumption.

    Beginnings of life

    He says life violates the second law of thermodynamics, this is incorrect. Life does not do this if it has a metabolism, as long as the organism produces more disorder then the order that is required to keep it going it is perfectly in line with the law. His even saying this is an enormous error. Why we eat, why we give off heat, why cells take in sugars and go through chains to break it down is creating disorder. To say that life’s creation violates the second law of thermodynamics is silly and frankly just incorrect. This link explains it better.

    http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/

    He quotes an experiment which tried to create life through the idea of primordial soup idea from the 1950’s and completely ignores the fact that there are modern newer experiments that have been conducted to show the possibility of how life got started the most recent being here.

    http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/scientists-form-building-blocks-life-recreating-asteroid-collision

    they have also gone a long way to creating a synthetic genome here.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/scientists-create-first-synthetic-cell-1.953807

    You know what I am just going to stop here… going through this whole video is not something I feel like spending my entire morning on. I will just state that this man is being a charlatan, he is presenting this information in a simplified and leading way. He does not address the problems and ideas in a honest objective fashion.

  • What if science itself pointed to a reality outside of space and time, and a Designer behind all that exists?

    Yeah. What If?

    Let me know when that happens. Not "what if" it happens.

    In Counting to God, Douglas Ell applies the lens of mathematical analysis to recent scientific discoveries, drawing startling conclusions.

    Ok. So a commercial for some guy's book. I hate to break the bad news here....but....some guy's book published in the commercial press, and a nifty video to go with, are not science. They are a guy publishing his ideas and opinions with no peer review and no objective testing of his data or conclusions. He is free to make any assumptions he wants and read his work any way he wants. The commercial press holds him to no restrictive guidelines.

    His credentials lack meaning in this context. We are faced with little more than the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. ANY person with an advanced degree can have the wrong opinions. Researchers can make an error in their own field. Its why the scientific process depends on review and repetition.

    And let's look at our author. He is quoted in the book as saying, “I’ve spent more than 30 years reconciling science and God, because I needed scientific evidence to believe in God.”

    See the problem here? Our man isn't following the evidence. He has a preconceived desire and is attempting to find the evidence to validate it. He "needs" the evidence. So he set out to read it in a way to do just that. Its his personal quest to reconcile a conflict in his mind so he could stay in his Safety Zone of god belief.

    Finally, an endorsement (or blurb) by other people who appear to share the author's faith does not peer review make.

    So.....again.......when there's actual, solid, tested evidence of "a reality outside of space and time, and a Designer behind all that exists" then I will be pleased as punch to have a look at it. Seriously.

  • This is fascinating stuff. And as there is equal evidence for it, I put it on par with Pastafarianism. To paraphrase a great thinker: "I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time on our (interest site), and eventually the world; One third time for discussion of Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."