Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:Who can say that the standard physics of our world really apply to the big bang, or the event of creation? I find nothing persuasive here I guess.

I agree - in fact physics breaks down and nothing is really known about the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe.

Atheists look through the lens of atheism and gain a perspective through cosmology that they try to fit in some place with all their other science I've no doubt some atheists do. Yet I am an atheist and look what I say (above): I think cosmology says nothing whatsoever about the possibility of a cr...

But is that not an example of how it can be 'spun' to support a theological / atheological position, PHIL121?

If theism or atheism is a natural or necessary conclusion of modern cosmology then I don't understand how there are both theist and atheist practising cosmologists.

I see the evidence but it doesn't point me toward a big bang any more than it points toward creation. Personally I think cosmology says nothing whatsoever about the possibility of a creator-god. I also think cosmology can be spun to "support" or "attack" any given creation story...

I still question why you are here, you haven't answered my questions in other threads. Original post . I'm not religious and never have been. But recently I have been more often in the company of religious people and have even found myself dragged to church through social obligation. As such am int...

Hi Jbuza. I agree to a certian extent. Natural laws are defined and interpreted by people and culture, but they exist outside of our interpretation and definition, I beleive. I agree that Nweton's definition may be lacking and perhaps others have done a different and perhaps even a better job of arr...

Actually Newtonian Physics is out and wrong. It turns out to be an approximation of more current theories. However in the everyday world this approximation suffices so it it still used. I agree with your sentiment entirely. However by your definition surely all theories are "out and out wrong&...

Thanks PHIL121.

I maintain it is evidence not proof, however.

Kurieuo wrote:I had a tooth pulled recently! It's usually more of a crack than a "blog" sound
...


Btw I meant "blob" not "blog" (obviously) in may last post.

I did wonder whose blog you've been reading that is so awful it's like having a tooth extracted!

lol I just made it up on the spot as I was registering for mirc about a year ago. People often comment on it. Someone said when I log in the chat they think of the dentist - like "blob" is the soft noise a tooth makes being pulled out. Urgh! But it can also be cute. I call my girlfriend's ...

*inserts 2 cents in slot* Personally I consider scientific laws to be constructed by people and cultures. I don't think they exist to be discovered. One reason I believe this is because scientific laws change all the time - if they were discovered they would stay the same it seems to me. For exampl...

Hi PHIL121! Yes that is right - although technically COBE data is evidence for the Big Bang not proof, albeit very strong evidence indeed. COBE has now been superseded by WMAP. Here's a picture of the early universe from COBE and WMAP. You can see the resolution difference. //map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_ig/...

Thanks Kurieuo, great idea.

And any on topic questions in this thread would be more than welcome.

Thank you, Byblos.

I agree we should perhaps leave the discussion there.

See you around the forums, Byblos.

:lol: I certainly am getting bent out of shape. Perhaps Byblos should start his own thread and cut out the middle man. He can ask a question, provide the answer and then show why the answer is untenable. It would at least save the hassle of putting words in my mouth, which will start to bore me if i...