Does Science Point To God?

[DBowling]

Here is an excellent lecture by Stephen Meyer on the scientific evidence that points to God:
Does Science Point To God? - Stephen Meyer at Dallas Science Faith Conference 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y02a28FrMKs

[Philip]

I find it helpful that people realize both the implications about the necessity of a Creator from the massive scientific evidences revealing that AND that they realize the limitations of what science can prove or disprove. Science tells us, prior to the Big Bang, there once was NOTHING - NO material things existing. And so what can science measure - ONLY material things and observable processes. Which means, A) the universe HAD to have a cause and B) that cause pre-existed ALL physical things and matter, and C) this means that the Cause of the universe cannot be tested for or DIRECTLY proven (or disproven) by science - other than the massive improbabilities they reveal would otherwise be impossible to exist without an immensely powerful and intelligent first Cause that transcends and pre-existed before the universe came into existence.

And when one learns as to what exactly came into existence in the first MINUTES of the universe, upon the Big Bang's beginning, their complexity, awesome designs - all on a massive scale and immediately interacting with breathtaking precision - well, it makes a joke of people so focused upon supposed evolutionary origins based upon ALREADY existing things (explain THAT!!!) and taking BILLIONS of years. You must explain how nothing can exist, and in minutes, marvelous things that our best minds can scarcely understand even their functions, IMMEDIATELY did!

[Byblos]

Science does NOT tell us, one way or the other, whether or not there was something prior to the big bang. Many theories abound but nothing definitive.

But even if we go with the most extreme presumption of the infinite existence of matter - in whatever form, into an infinite past time, it doesn't change the fact that matter is contingent. And anything contingent requires an absolute necessity for its existence, physical but, more fundamentally, ontological.

[Philip]

MOST physicists believe the universe and matter had a beginning and that no PHYSICAL things or matter existed prior to the Big Bang. Now, IF SOMETHING non-physical did pre-exist - that still wouldn't explain the brilliant designs, functionalities, order and immediate precise assembling that current understandings assert occurred - as all those things take great power and intelligence! So, whether we can prove NOTHING existed, much science appears to confirm it did not. So, to argue from some eternally existing / non-intelligent things is NOT an argument from science but of wild theories and speculation - not to mention, desperation to leave God out of the equation!

[DBowling]

I think Meyer makes an excellent case that science is not agnostic regarding an intelligent Creator.

In this lecture Meyer presents three great scientific evidences regarding cosmological and biological origins.
- The universe had a beginning
- The universe was finely tuned from the beginning
- There have been infusions of information into earth's biosphere since the beginning.

These three great evidences indicate
- There is a Creator that transcends the material universe
- That Creator is intelligent
- That Creator is active in the creation

These three great evidences about cosmological and biological origins validate the Scriptural position that...
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
(Romans 1:20)

[Philip]

DB: I think Meyer makes an excellent case that science is not agnostic regarding an intelligent Creator.

In this lecture Meyer presents three great scientific evidences regarding cosmological and biological origins.
- The universe had a beginning
- The universe was finely tuned from the beginning
- There have been infusions of information into earth's biosphere since the beginning.

Yet so many would argue that such things don't prove anything. But they MUST logically prove what was necessary, as the alternative asserts that many complexities, functionalities and designs of what came into existence at the Big Bang don't require intelligence. So the question remains, what are blind, non-living things capable of? They can't see, plot, plan, have control over themselves, have any way of seeking or recognizing advantages, etc. And thus they have ZERO potential to gain intelligence or to use it! So BLIND / non-living / non-intelligent things cannot explain the Big Bang or the things happening within it!

[Byblos]

MOST physicists believe the universe and matter had a beginning and that no PHYSICAL things or matter existed prior to the Big Bang.

I don't know what most physicists believe and I venture to guess neither do you but I'd be happy to look at some stats if you have them.

Now, IF SOMETHING non-physical did pre-exist -

What do you mean by non-physical? You mean spiritual, like souls and angels? Or do you mean whatever supposedly existed (if any) prior to the big bang? If you mean the latter, then that too, is also physical, i.e. is governed by a set of physical laws. Even at the quantum level there are still physical laws that govern quantum gravitational fields and quantum mechanics.

that still wouldn't explain the brilliant designs, functionalities, order and immediate precise assembling that current understandings assert occurred - as all those things take great power and intelligence!

No argument there.

So, whether we can prove NOTHING existed, much science appears to confirm it did not.

You keep repeating that science confirmed it and I'm you telling you you are flat out wrong. Science confirmed no such thing, if for nothing else that science is not in the business of confirming anything.

So, to argue from some eternally existing / non-intelligent things is NOT an argument from science ...

Which is precisely what I'm telling you and yet you keep insisting science has confirmed it.

but of wild theories and speculation - not to mention, desperation to leave God out of the equation!

Or perhaps scholastic philosophers as early as the 13th century recognized the futility of arguing against infinite past time as proof for the existence of God and steered away from it like the plague and instead employed far better arguments from metaphysics.

But then again, what did they know.

[Philip]

Byblos: You keep repeating that science confirmed it and I'm you telling you you are flat out wrong. Science confirmed no such thing, if for nothing else that science is not in the business of confirming anything.

Let's put it another way, then: Now, after centuries, and especially in the area of modern physics and astrophysics, science has provided absolutely NO reason to believe anything physical pre-existed the Big Bang. Proven - no. But why do YOU seem to doubt it? Course, science can only measure the physical or it's traces or impact (like black holes / dark matter). So, I'm only using "proven" in the sense that an immense amount of studies and data converge on, even if it cannot go a bit further back to prove such. And it is obvious - as you have long argued, that NOTHING comes from NOTHING - with your "unsupported bookcase analogy. And really, that is the ONLY reason to think there was something before the Big Bang. Again, scientific evidences show that what IS known about the early universe and it's building blocks literally screams that an intelligence was required.

Hebrews 11:3: By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was NOT made out of things that are visible."

So, it is certainly implied in Scripture that God spoke the universe into existence from nothing, as it is contrasted with being made "out of things that ARE visible."

Astrophysicist and apologist Hugh Ross discusses it here: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... -it-first!

[Byblos]

Byblos: You keep repeating that science confirmed it and I'm you telling you you are flat out wrong. Science confirmed no such thing, if for nothing else that science is not in the business of confirming anything.

Let's put it another way, then: Now, after centuries, and especially in the area of modern physics and astrophysics, science has provided absolutely NO reason to believe anything physical pre-existed the Big Bang. Proven - no. But why do YOU seem to doubt it? Course, science can only measure the physical or it's traces or impact (like black holes / dark matter). So, I'm only using "proven" in the sense that an immense amount of studies and data converge on, even if it cannot go a bit further back to prove such. And it is obvious - as you have long argued, that NOTHING comes from NOTHING - with your "unsupported bookcase analogy. And really, that is the ONLY reason to think there was something before the Big Bang. Again, scientific evidences show that what IS known about the early universe and it's building blocks literally screams that an intelligence was required.

Hebrews 11:3: By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was NOT made out of things that are visible."

So, it is certainly implied in Scripture that God spoke the universe into existence from nothing, as it is contrasted with being made "out of things that ARE visible."

Astrophysicist and apologist Hugh Ross discusses it here: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... -it-first!

I don't doubt it at all - you know that. I would argue scripture doesn't just imply an absolute beginning to physical reality, the text actually is emphatic on the subject. I simply choose to also steer away from arguing against infinite physical reality as proof for God because it's an emotional argument, not one based in reason.

It is a fact that from reason alone it cannot be shown that physical reality is not infinite in the past. Do I believe it? Of course not. Neither did Aquinas and most of the church doctors, old and new.

We can certainly argue from science as the best evidence for an absolute beginning, not just of this universe but for any number of universes, theoretical or otherwise. I've often used the BVG theorem to that end.

But proof? Let's just leave that to reason.

[Kurieuo]

Proof? I think it is in the pudding personally. Chocolate pudding.

[Challenger007]

Byblos: You keep repeating that science confirmed it and I'm you telling you you are flat out wrong. Science confirmed no such thing, if for nothing else that science is not in the business of confirming anything.

Let's put it another way, then: Now, after centuries, and especially in the area of modern physics and astrophysics, science has provided absolutely NO reason to believe anything physical pre-existed the Big Bang. Proven - no. But why do YOU seem to doubt it? Course, science can only measure the physical or it's traces or impact (like black holes / dark matter). So, I'm only using "proven" in the sense that an immense amount of studies and data converge on, even if it cannot go a bit further back to prove such. And it is obvious - as you have long argued, that NOTHING comes from NOTHING - with your "unsupported bookcase analogy. And really, that is the ONLY reason to think there was something before the Big Bang. Again, scientific evidences show that what IS known about the early universe and it's building blocks literally screams that an intelligence was required.

Hebrews 11:3: By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was NOT made out of things that are visible."

So, it is certainly implied in Scripture that God spoke the universe into existence from nothing, as it is contrasted with being made "out of things that ARE visible."

Astrophysicist and apologist Hugh Ross discusses it here: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... -it-first!

I don't doubt it at all - you know that. I would argue scripture doesn't just imply an absolute beginning to physical reality, the text actually is emphatic on the subject. I simply choose to also steer away from arguing against infinite physical reality as proof for God because it's an emotional argument, not one based in reason.

It is a fact that from reason alone it cannot be shown that physical reality is not infinite in the past. Do I believe it? Of course not. Neither did Aquinas and most of the church doctors, old and new.

We can certainly argue from science as the best evidence for an absolute beginning, not just of this universe but for any number of universes, theoretical or otherwise. I've often used the BVG theorem to that end.

But proof? Let's just leave that to reason.

We have no convincing evidence (except for words, and we understand that you can say and write anything) of neither one nor the other. It seems to me that the most reasonable option is not to divide the world into only spiritual or only physical. All processes are interconnected. We can assert as much as we like that it is only a matter of science, developments, and drawings, but these developments will not work without the energy that is in the world. Gravity is energy, resistance is also energy. We have found definitions for many types of energy for convenience. But in essence, this energy is not material. We can say that this divine power allows us to realize all our plans and developments. For example, an aerospace company in Scotland is developing satellite launch vehicles. Do they not take into account the influence of invisible energy in their designs, the action of which requires more effort to launch a satellite into low-Earth orbit? Of course. I say this to the fact that in our world everything is interconnected - tangible and invisible, physical, and spiritual/energetic. Therefore, you cannot divide the world. We will not be able to do without basic things, nor without the energy that maintains the balance.