Evidence for God from Science

Blob wrote:Thanks PHIL121.

I maintain it is evidence not proof, however.

It's not proof because of you

Proof-The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: You're right the measurements taken do not count out the creation of the universe by God. But this is not in the realm of science. Science cannot assume any more than observable evidence and naturalistic explanations.

Where is this written that God is outside of the realm of science? While I agree there is no scietific proof that God does exist, there is neither scientific explanation that the big bang happened. The creation of the universe is as much a valid scientific theory as the big bang. Science cannot prove that God doesn't exist and must therefore admit that creation is a valid scientific theory. The theory that God exists and set natural events into order, and maintains the cosmos explains naturalistic observations at lest as adequatley as the big bang. Science can neither prove that the big bang didn't happen and must suppose that a swirling mass of gases could explain things.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:All the measurements show is that the innitial expansion was very uniform in composition and that the formation of galaxies and quasars came afterwards.

Further evidence of order not random chaos

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Just nit-picking.
Actually its not the fact that its 3K, the evidence is the fact that the energy is so smoothly distributed everywhere.

Noooooo...the fact it's 3 K (it might be 2.7, IIRC) shows how long it's been since the Big bang occured.

PHIL121 wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Just nit-picking.
Actually its not the fact that its 3K, the evidence is the fact that the energy is so smoothly distributed everywhere.

Noooooo...the fact it's 3 K (it might be 2.7, IIRC) shows how long it's been since the Big bang occured.

That's true
=)
But the fact that its uniform indicates that it was a single event!

Yeah, you're a nitpicker allright

Jbuza wrote: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 as we see done convincingly by both sides in many debates.

Blob wrote: 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 as we see done convincingly by both sides in many debates.

Well, the universe does display a certain harmony that points to the Creator. The fundemantal constants (Planks' constant, Stefan Boltzmann constant, etc) that govern the universe had to be all in synchronicity for starsand planets to form, and for life to arise.

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.

Blob wrote: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.

1.) Theists look through the lens of theism and gain a perspective through cosmology that matches or confirms with other supporting science that points towards a creator.

2. 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 since they have no foundation to lay their science on except to try to disprove God, when God can't be proved in the first place by science.

Theism has a foundation, atheism does not, one stays strong and the other falls apart.

PHIL121 wrote:One of the more solid proofs forthe Big Bang theory is the 3 K (as in Kelvin) background radiation. NASA put a a satellite (COBE-COsmic Background Explorer) a fews years back to study it.

http://www.masterliness.com/a/Non.stand ... mology.htm

Some information on cosmology here, interesting site. This is an intricate theory, and suspicous in its testability, it is not the most simple explanation to explain the observations.

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. Very interesting though, I wish I had a better understanding of what the principles in this theory are.

Thinker wrote: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 creator-god. I also think cosmology can be spun to "support" or "attack" any given creation story as we see done convincingly by both sides in many debates.

Ahh...the wikipedia! where anyone can post ideas and call them 'facts'.

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.

Blob wrote:

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.

Not real sure if I agree or not!? IT certianly, to my mind lends evidence to God, that science can't adequatley explain things. Perhaps physcis can't explain the process because their was an extra-physical force at work during this very early periond of time. The only scientific answer that has merit, for me, is that these laws and science itself evolved in conjunction with the origin itself. And if this is excepted than science as a method has no realiable answer. I however do accept that science is absolute, although I can't make a valid scientific claim that it is.