Evidence for God from Science

Im not exactly championing deism if thats what you think. My point is that the intelligent person is not a theist alone. Respect that fact. No one is stopping at deism. Scientists are constantly searching and eventually will find it but it won't be god. But to reiterate my point, yes there are circumstantial evidence but that is where it stops. God is not physical as us, i dont expect anything will reveal him other than faith.

I recall that some ( many?) scientist were against the BBT because it did indeed seem to imply some sort of "supernatural" start to things.
Hence the views of multiple universes and such that came to be to try and counter the BBT.
The BBT was, perhaps, the one scientific view that seem to imply that something started it all a long, long time ago.

Paul, the ppl trying to reject bbt are not exactly denying "something " that started it all, the thing is that we now know of quantum physics more than it was understood at the time. When hawking or any scientist rejects the bbt the are nit rejecting that a universe did not start only that the cause was quantum in nature, it was not creation ex nihilio. This is something that many religious folks have held traditionally. So if a Christian is describing bbt with a passive nod to creation from nothing, then the scientist would disagree.

When hawking says that a universe was born from a quantum soup, he of course means it had a start but it is not the start, as there ia something rather than nothing. So its not the big bang itself or the start of the universe which is strictly a problem.

The disagreement lies with what caused it. And whether it was the first cause. At quantum level, the first cause would not be gid for the big bang that resulted in our universe.

The more we understand quantum mechanics, the more we do not understand it

(Sorry, I could not resist)

neo-x wrote:Paul, the ppl trying to reject bbt are not exactly denying "something " that started it all, the thing is that we now know of quantum physics more than it was understood at the time. When hawking or any scientist rejects the bbt the are nit rejecting that a universe did not start only that the cause was quantum in nature, it was not creation ex nihilio. This is something that many religious folks have held traditionally. So if a Christian is describing bbt with a passive nod to creation from nothing, then the scientist would disagree.

When hawking says that a universe was born from a quantum soup, he of course means it had a start but it is not the start, as there ia something rather than nothing. So its not the big bang itself or the start of the universe which is strictly a problem.

The disagreement lies with what caused it. And whether it was the first cause. At quantum level, the first cause would not be gid for the big bang that resulted in our universe.

Yes I agree.
But creation didn't really start "out of nothing" per say, There was God so there was already something.
Genesis is the only "account" we have (other than John 1:1) and it doesn't state explicitly "out of nothing" but states:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness...

While one can say that "nothingness" is implied, I think that is based on interpreting scripture from a preconceived view of it is means already.

One can even argue that Genesis is about the creation of life on Earth in an "already existing" universe.

The view that the BB started from a "quantum singularity" still has to answer the question of what caused the singularity to "do what it did".

yes paul, I would agree, there was God, so there was something already.

But to your second point I think it would not be a good idea to somehow assume that the ane ppl knew about quantum fluctuation or preexisting energy or matter and wrote the scriptures in a way which marginally allows us to interpret it that way at a later date, my honest opinion is, it does not.

The view that the BB started from a "quantum singularity" still has to answer the question of what caused the singularity to "do what it did".

may be nothing, may be laws which are operating outside this universe, maybe it was just a reaction. Throw a stone and break a window, if I ask you what caused the glass to break the correct technical answer is that the force and pressure of the stone was more stronger than that of the glass. It is expected therefore it happened. The scientist would tell you that in the quantum world, particles bobble in and out all the time, we still don't know why, or if there is a law which governs it or several or the laws are a direct byproduct of the what's happening the quantum flux, Like a chain reaction, one complements the other. So an event like this is not rare, nor strictly special, it is among many other combinations which can come out.

neo-x wrote:yes paul, I would agree, there was God, so there was something already.

But to your second point I think it would not be a good idea to somehow assume that the ane ppl knew about quantum fluctuation or preexisting energy or matter and wrote the scriptures in a way which marginally allows us to interpret it that way at a later date, my honest opinion is, it does not.

The view that the BB started from a "quantum singularity" still has to answer the question of what caused the singularity to "do what it did".

may be nothing, may be laws which are operating outside this universe, maybe it was just a reaction. Throw a stone and break a window, if I ask you what caused the glass to break the correct technical answer is that the force and pressure of the stone was more stronger than that of the glass. It is expected therefore it happened. The scientist would tell you that in the quantum world, particles bobble in and out all the time, we still don't know why, or if there is a law which governs it or several or the laws are a direct byproduct of the what's happening the quantum flux, Like a chain reaction, one complements the other. So an event like this is not rare, nor strictly special, it is among many other combinations which can come out.

I think the Genesis is ANE cosmology/creation writing, not intended to make a concrete statement on creation BUT to make a theological statement ABOUT it:
In short:
God created ALL in a gradual process from start to finish, His hand was in there.
Details of HOW He did that were to them irrelevant because, quite frankly, how can simply Man understand The Creator?

Science can only comment on what it observes and the BB tells us that the universe has a starting point and that it is still expanding, it really doesn't state anything else.
Science can state WHY or even HOW it happened, simply comment that it did and this is why we believe so.