Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the world would be a better place because everyone would agree. That wouldn't solve lots of evil problems. I am saying that, THEOLOGICALLY speaking (which is what your question is), the Christian position is that when all the world turns to God and acknowledges their need for Him, He will then turn to the world and restore it.

Ahh... I took your statement quite differently. Assuming your "Kingdom of God" hypothesis to be correct (I'll not question it here, as that is a quite separate argument), then, of course, you are unquestionably correct. Thanks for clarifying!

Jac3510 wrote:

ManOfScience wrote:I tend to disagree: I value my life quite highly.

I'm speaking of intrinsic value. You may value a particular stuffed animal because it has sentimental value to you, but that doesn't mean it has any intrinsic value. Your life, if God doesn't exist, has no value.

Agreed (almost; see below). (My original statement was somewhat in jest; note the smiley. )

Jac3510 wrote:Thus, in order for life to have meaning, you NEED God.

I'm not sure that's quite the opposite of my argument (which is "the universe and all life contained therein are a result of random chance events"), but I can see how, with a little bias, you could easily reach that conclusion. However, taking it as true for the time being, my response is: But I don't NEED my life to have a meaning; I'm perfectly content being the result of a series of random events.

Jac3510 wrote:Hope that clarifies things. ... If nothing else, you can at least, I presume, see the consistency in the logic, even if you disagree with the fundamental premise and thus the conclusion.

Indeed it does, and indeed I can. Thank you very much for providing a logical, well reasoned response!

Why is it that I, for example, have less to offer than you, for example? How do my beliefs decrease the good I can for charity, for example? Please also tell me what good you can do with your beliefs that I cannot do without those same beliefs.

It seems my brethren have done a fine job of answering, but since you asked me directly I'll respond.

As Jac said we are talking about "value" here. I am not saying you have more or less to offer. It is not what I "beleive" that gives my life value. That would be arogant, would it not? My life either has intrinsic value or it does not. Period, end of story. If you are right, and the cosmos is a purposeless, uncreated, meaningless mishmash of debris, then yes, my life, your life or any life has no intrinsic value. Morals have no intrinsic value. And we can't say that charity or greed has any more intrinsic value than one or the other. However, if the Christian worldview is right, then the cosmos has purpose, and your life and mine have intrinsic value.

Just to clarify. An atheist can do things we label as good, such as being nice, helping others, etc. I do not propose as AOK does, that who does the most good or harm is right or wrong. That is not a way to establish whether a worldview is true. Suppose there is a classroom composed of Atheist and Theist. A test is given, and all the theist get the answer to the test right, and all the atheist get it wrong. Would it be correct to say, "theism is the correct worldview!" No. A thing is either true or it is not. Life either has intrinsic value, or it does not. That is what the discussion is about. Charity is either inherently good or it isn't. If it isn't then it neither has any real value. You do a charitible deed. So what? What is the inherent value in doing this good? Based on your world view, nothing. A Muslim terrorist views flying planes into the WTC as a TRULY valuable and good thing. Why do they have less to offer than you? Why is your ethic more valuable than there own? Aside from your opinion, what can you provide to show that one is valuable and one is not? Nothing.

I'm perfectly content being the result of a series of random events.

Your contentment has nothing to do with what is or isn't. It doesn't disolve your NEED for God. You've heard the statement, ignorance is bliss. There is a man on an airplane. You offer him a parachute. He sets down his coffee, and says, "no thank you, I don't need a parachute, I am quite content as I am." What this man doesn't know is that at any minute the plane's engines will fail and the passengers are going to have to jump from the plane at 10,000 feet. It doesn't matter how comfortable the passenger is, or that he is unaware of what is about to happen. The jump is coming. MOS, you are going to make a jump into eternity. And it doesn't matter how content you are with your life, or how much you do or don't value it. 10 out of 10 people die. That is a statistical fact. No matter how much we try to assuage our fears, the reality of death is pushing us closer to the door with every second that ticks off the clock. The only thing that matters is having the parachute to save you from the jump to come. Eternity is a long time to be wrong. You need Jesus for the same reason a person jumping from a plane needs a parachute. To save you. A person jumping from a plane without a parachute will have to face the reality of the law of gravity. In the same way you have transgressed the Law of God. If God is real, then what matters is how He sees your life. All I am asking you is to consider what "if?" The way we can see our need for God is to look into His law.
Take the test and see. http://www.livingwaters.com/good/

jlay wrote:It seems my brethren have done a fine job of answering, but since you asked me directly I'll respond.

Just to say, I thought this was a much better answer than your previous attempts. I pretty much agree with the whole of the first part of what you wrote. The second part, however, while being a truly entertaining analogy, does little to convince me of my need for God. Where you see need (and I respect your (right to) your opinion), I see delusion (in the sense that you're seeing a need for something non-existent).

Anyway, thank you for your response; you certainly gave me food for thought this time!

MOS,
If the reality of God where simply a delusion, I would give it up and get on with living my life any old way I wanted.

There is another side of this I feel compelled to share with you. For many of us here, we did not simply grow up in some commune, having these faith views force fed and brainwashed into our heads. On the contrary, myself and many others here, come from a background of self-soveriegnty much like yourself. Many of us resisted and wrestled with these things. The truth is, like others who post here, I had an encounter with the living God. I can no more deny that God is, than I can deny that I exist. At that moment I moved out of the realm of belief and into the realm of experience. I can not manufacture a personal experience to you. I can tell you and show you what our faith teaches in regards to it. I can tell you that God resist the proud and gives grace to the humble. (1 Peter 5:5) A humble person isn't one who just believes any old thing you tell them.
What are the realites?
- The creation (Romans 1: 19 )God has made things plain in creation. If we just consider the odds of simple life arrising out of a purposeless empty nothing, it is mind blowing. not to mention all of the delicate balances that must exist in the cosmos for the earth to sustain life that is self-aware, and able to comprehend such things.
- The conscience (Romans 2:15)
- Philosphical truths (Jac is an expert here.)

It is the humility with which one handles these things that allows the person to advance to the next step. One can not expect to understand advanced Algebra, if they resist basic mathmatics. If one is willfully ignorant or stubborn, that reveals pride. And 1 Peter 5:5 demonstrates that God will resist such a person. The realities of God are at your disposal, to know and experience. It is how you handle those simple things that determines what answer you will get. For example. I can demand that President Obama appear in my living room. But am I being realistic? No. If I am going to meet with the President, I am going to have to do it on his terms. And why would you expect anything different from the creator of the universe? To expect more is delusional.

If someone clearly explains to you why you need God, and your rebuttal is that they are delusional, then I can expect you will never encounter God in that way. Why? Because it reveals stubborness. I am not saying you must believe in God. I am saying, consider the evidence with a humble mind that says, what if? Let's look at the facts. Jac, myself and others have given you some clear logical truths as to why your life has intrinsic value. That should come as a great revelation to you. But the implications would cost you your entire worldview, and thus you reject them. It is as if you don't want your life to have inherent value. Self soveriegnty is a mighty hard thing to surrender. I know, because I had to walk through the same thing to get where I am today. All I am trying to convince you of is "If" God exist, then consider this.

It is because of my experience with God that I can say, the evidence demands exploring. Not a dismissal based on platitudes.

jlay wrote:A humble person isn't one who just believes any old thing you tell them.

This is interesting; it relates somewhat to a thought that occurred to me recently. (It might sound "sophomoric" at first, but the question behind it is a serious one.)

What if we (the population of Earth) had a "What If?" machine? (Oops, I didn't mean to ask such a recursive question!) I mean, I'd really like to see what my beliefs would be now if I had been brought up in a family/community of Christian believers. I'm inclined to think I'd "see through" the stories to the same truth I see today; but I'm willing to bet that the majority of people here would feel the same way (irregardless of which "truth" they're talking about). Obviously, many people do "switch sides", but I suspect a far greater number hold on to the beliefs with which they're brought up into adulthood. What do you think?

jlay wrote:What are the realites?

Not to be disrespectful, but quoting passages of a book that I consider to be 99% fiction won't do much to influence me in any way.

jlay wrote:If we just consider the odds of simple life arrising out of a purposeless empty nothing, it is mind blowing.

To me, the transition from molecules to primordial soup to cells to multicellular organisms is not that difficult to fathom. Indeed, the idea that a single being/power/whatever could create all this is way more fanciful in my mind.

jlay wrote:One can not expect to understand advanced Algebra, if they resist basic mathmatics. If one is willfully ignorant or stubborn, that reveals pride.

This is true, but I don't think your analogy holds up to scrutiny. My mind is perfectly capable of understanding the facts quoted by theists. Just because I say you need to have faith that I'm the King of the Fairies before you'll be able to see the fairies, doesn't make fairies real! Are you too ignorant/stubborn/proud to see my minions?

jlay wrote:If someone clearly explains to you why you need God, and your rebuttal is that they are delusional, then I can expect you will never encounter God in that way. Why? Because it reveals stubborness.

This doesn't follow. It reveals not stubborness, but rather a different interpretation of the evidence. Again, are you too stubborn to enter my Fairy Kingdom?

jlay wrote:I am not saying you must believe in God. I am saying, consider the evidence with a humble mind that says, what if? Let's look at the facts.

This, believe it or not, I am more than willing to do.

jlay wrote:Jac, myself and others have given you some clear logical truths as to why your life has intrinsic value.

You might have the right to call them truths if you'd proved your points; until that time, they are merely arguments.

jlay wrote:That should come as a great revelation to you. But the implications would cost you your entire worldview, and thus you reject them.

This is not the reason why I reject them. The reason I reject them is that, after careful consideration, I still do not believe that this universe was created by a man with a mission.

jlay wrote:It is as if you don't want your life to have inherent value.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I do or do not want. Rather, it is based purely on my interpretation of the evidence.

jlay wrote:Self soveriegnty is a mighty hard thing to surrender. I know, because I had to walk through the same thing to get where I am today. All I am trying to convince you of is "If" God exist, then consider this.

Indeed, considering "What if [God existed]?" type questions is one of the ways in which one can test the theories put forward by theists and atheists alike.

jlay wrote:It is because of my experience with God that I can say, the evidence demands exploring. Not a dismissal based on platitudes.

I would not be willing to dismiss any argument based on a platitude.

What do you think?

I think most people today are raised secular humanist. There are many people who "go to church" but they aren't raised Christian. They are influenced by public schools, pop culture, TV , etc. They know more about Hannah Montana than they do the Bible. So, in a way I agree with you. I think people are resistent to the bible not because they have given it careful study, but because of how they are raised. They have a prejudice against the Bible because the culture teaches that it can not harmonize with science.

but quoting passages of a book that I consider to be 99% fiction won't do much to influence me in any way.

MOS, I want to be believe you can take a humble sincere look at the evidence, but it is responses like this that make me say, "something don't jive."

Forget the supernatural for a moment.The Bible has proven to be factual and reliable in so many areas. Let us just look at the historocity of the book. The historical facts are overwhelming. So to say that you consider 99% of the bible to be fiction shows a great disregard for history and archeology, which has confirmed the bible time and time again. Unlike other religions that are myth and are not connected to any history or geography.

This goes exactly to what I talked about earier. You have to consider the simple things first.

Further, to say one can't quote from the Bible is a ridiculous assertion as well. It's like me asking you to prove 2+2=4 but you can't you numbers, or words or objects to represent numbers. The bible records real historical figures and real events. The verses I provided are specific in that they give instruction on what one needs to see to know that God is real. The Bible says, here is how you can know these things are true. you are saying that sharing that information with you is off-limits. I'm sorry, but that does not demonstrate open mindedness or a willingness to consider the evidence on its face value.

To me, the transition from molecules to primordial soup to cells to multicellular organisms is not that difficult to fathom. Indeed, the idea that a single being/power/whatever could create all this is way more fanciful in my mind.

Sure, then do it. Try to create the simplest element from nothing.
Is my belief more faniciful than believing that nothing created everything? Let's just look at the basic building blocks of life. What do we find when we examine them? Information. Information is evidence of a designer. Information does not create itself. God has stamped his fingerprints all over our universe.

My mind is perfectly capable of understanding the facts quoted by theists. Just because I say you need to have faith that I'm the King of the Fairies before you'll be able to see the fairies, doesn't make fairies real! Are you too ignorant/stubborn/proud to see my minions?

That is a straw man. We have the historical Jesus. The historical truth of the bible. The prophecies within. And I have the personal experience to confirm the evidence within. Comparing that to some ridiculous product of your imagination is absurd. I didn't say you needed faith in God to examine the bible or its claims. You do need to be open and humble to recieve anything from God. I have explained why, rationally and logically.

This doesn't follow. It reveals not stubborness, but rather a different interpretation of the evidence. Again, are you too stubborn to enter my Fairy Kingdom?

You can lead a horse to water.....
You see, you can claim open mindedness, but your statements convey a different message. You just painted the evidence, even though you probably didn't realize your own words speak against you.

Rather, it is based purely on my interpretation of the evidence.

Evidence you will not consider? How can you interpret evidence you will not consider?

jlay wrote:They know more about Hannah Montana than they do the Bible.

Lol! This is certainly true. Sadly, it's also true of HM vs. literary classics, HM vs. history, HM vs. science, and any number of other things.

jlay wrote:Forget the supernatural for a moment.The Bible has proven to be factual and reliable in so many areas.

I shan't contest this fact. But, just because some parts of the Bible have been proven to be factual, doesn't mean the entire thing is.

jlay wrote:So to say that you consider 99% of the bible to be fiction shows a great disregard for history and archeology, which has confirmed the bible time and time again. Unlike other religions that are myth and are not connected to any history or geography.

The Iliad is based around the (very real) city of Troy. Does this mean we are to accept Zeus, Athena, et al. as true supernatural beings?

jlay wrote:The bible records real historical figures and real events.

Certain figured and events are certainly real; others are fiction, comparable in purpose, perhaps, to Aesop's Fables.

jlay wrote:Sure, then do it.

I didn't say I could do it, nor that it was easy; I said the idea seems plausible to me. However, scientists have indeed managed to create something similar to the primordial soup under laboratory conditions.

jlay wrote:Try to create the simplest element from nothing.

One (even God) cannot create something from nothing; the conservation of energy prevents it.

jlay wrote:What do we find when we examine them? Information. Information is evidence of a designer. Information does not create itself.

Certainly, we find information! In the background radiation of the universe, for example. But this information needn't have been designed! Why would you think such a thing? It can be perfectly explained by several of the Big Bang theories that have been put forward, none of which requires a creator/designer.

jlay wrote:That is a straw man. We have the historical Jesus.

That is a man. Not one made of straw; one made of skin and bones, just like you and me.

jlay wrote:The historical truth of the bible. The prophecies within.

Again, you can't just say that something is true and make it so. As for prophecies, the vast majority of them don't come true, and the rest can be easily explained as coincidence (particularly as most of them aren't prophesized to occur at a particular time. I could prophesize, "jlay, you are going to die!" and guess what? I'd be right!).

jlay wrote:And I have the personal experience to confirm the evidence within.

I don't know if you want to share what your PE is, but I cannot be expected to accept evidence blindly, just because "I said so".

jlay wrote:Evidence you will not consider? How can you interpret evidence you will not consider?

I will consider all credible evidence. If parts of the Bible can be backed up with hard evidence (archaeology, to use a good example supplied by you), then I have no problem considering it. Although, if a fact can be proved by primary evidence, you don't need the Bible (secondary evidence) to back it up, do you?

jlay wrote:The verses I provided are specific in that they give instruction on what one needs to see to know that God is real.

These are examples of verses that cannot be backed up by hard evidence.

ManOfScience wrote:

jlay wrote:They know more about Hannah Montana than they do the Bible.

Lol! This is certainly true. Sadly, it's also true of HM vs. literary classics, HM vs. history, HM vs. science, and any number of other things.

jlay wrote:Forget the supernatural for a moment.The Bible has proven to be factual and reliable in so many areas.

I shan't contest this fact. But, just because some parts of the Bible have been proven to be factual, doesn't mean the entire thing is.
Baby steps. It is one piece of the equation.

jlay wrote:So to say that you consider 99% of the bible to be fiction shows a great disregard for history and archeology, which has confirmed the bible time and time again. Unlike other religions that are myth and are not connected to any history or geography.

The Iliad is based around the (very real) city of Troy. Does this mean we are to accept Zeus, Athena, et al. as true supernatural beings?
Of course not. And we have very simple, logical, knowable reasons to come to such a conclusion.

jlay wrote:The bible records real historical figures and real events.

Certain figured and events are certainly real; others are fiction, comparable in purpose, perhaps, to Aesop's Fables.
The bible is very clear when it list people in a historical narrative. Lineages are a very big part of the bible. However, there are parables where we know that the people are not historical figures. But the bible is clear in these matters.

jlay wrote:Sure, then do it.

I didn't say I could do it, nor that it was easy; I said the idea seems plausible to me. However, scientists have indeed managed to create something similar to the primordial soup under laboratory conditions. They didn't create anything. They started with something. No one even knows that there was a primordial soup. It is an assumption with no evidence to observe. It is an alternative to explain origins of life without a creator. It is faith based.

jlay wrote:Try to create the simplest element from nothing.

One (even God) cannot create something from nothing; the conservation of energy prevents it.
Yet, science points to a beginning where everything sprung forth from nothing. No matter how far you want to push the alpha point back in time it is there gnawing at us. And we actually have scientists today professing that everything came from nothing. I can dig up some sources if you like.

jlay wrote:What do we find when we examine them? Information. Information is evidence of a designer. Information does not create itself.

Certainly, we find information! In the background radiation of the universe, for example. But this information needn't have been designed! Why would you think such a thing? It can be perfectly explained by several of the Big Bang theories that have been put forward, none of which requires a creator/designer.
That would be residue. I am talking about specific information. Are you going to try and say that DNA is not information? Are you going to say that the BBT adequately explains the origins of everything? There was nothing. Nothing exploded and created everything. That is faith with a capital F.

jlay wrote:That is a straw man. We have the historical Jesus.

That is a man. Not one made of straw; one made of skin and bones, just like you and me.
Your example was a straw man argument. perhaps you'd like a definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I was comparing your straw man argument of a fairy king, to the real historical Jesus.

jlay wrote:The historical truth of the bible. The prophecies within.

Again, you can't just say that something is true and make it so. As for prophecies, the vast majority of them don't come true, and the rest can be easily explained as coincidence (particularly as most of them aren't prophesized to occur at a particular time. I could prophesize, "jlay, you are going to die!" and guess what? I'd be right!).
Good grief man, don't make this so easy. That is a humongous distortion of the truth. Now if you predicted how I would die, and specifics you'd have something. Be honest. Have you examined the prophecy of Isaiah 53?

jlay wrote:And I have the personal experience to confirm the evidence within.

I don't know if you want to share what your PE is, but I cannot be expected to accept evidence blindly, just because "I said so".
And I don't expect you to. It is just a reality that a man with an argument is no match for a man with an experience. I am pointing you toward the experience.

jlay wrote:Evidence you will not consider? How can you interpret evidence you will not consider?

I will consider all credible evidence. If parts of the Bible can be backed up with hard evidence (archaeology, to use a good example supplied by you), then I have no problem considering it. Although, if a fact can be proved by primary evidence, you don't need the Bible (secondary evidence) to back it up, do you?
It's all out there. A lot of it is linked on the main page of this site.

jlay wrote:The verses I provided are specific in that they give instruction on what one needs to see to know that God is real.

These are examples of verses that cannot be backed up by hard evidence.

Are you saying you can't look around you and see the earth? Are you saying you do not have a conscience?

When you look at a painting, how do you know it has a painter? Do you have to personally meet the painter to know there was one. What evidence do you have? The painting is evidence of the painter. The creation is evidence of the creator. It is almost a genetically wired response for humans to look at the earth and beyond, and say, "what is the meaning of this?"

jlay wrote:I am talking about specific information. Are you going to try and say that DNA is not information? Are you going to say that the BBT adequately explains the origins of everything?

Certainly it does! Everything we see in the universe today is a logical (though not necessarily predictable) result of the Big Bang.

jlay wrote:There was nothing. Nothing exploded and created everything. That is faith with a capital F.

I wouldn't say that "nothing exploded"; rather, that quantum fluctuations ("something from nothing") expanded (during inflation), thereby creating the universe we see today.

jlay wrote:Have you examined the prophecy of Isaiah 53?

You're talking about the supposed prophecy of the coming of Jesus? I'm sure I haven't examined it in as much detail as you probably have, but that doesn't mean I'm not in a position to debunk it. It's as vague a "prophecy" as one could possibly imagine; theologians can't even agree on whether or not the passage relates to Jesus! It could be applied to almost anything; and, conversely, it would be easy to apply to it anything you fancied. So, I'm sorry, but I am unable to put as much stock in that as you obviously are.

jlay wrote:It is just a reality that a man with an argument is no match for a man with an experience.

Then there is no way for my to win this argument? How convenient.

jlay wrote:Are you saying you can't look around you and see the earth? Are you saying you do not have a conscience?

I see the Earth; I see the stars; I have a conscience, and I have morals. Yet none of these things requires there to be a creator; all can be explained perfectly well -- indeed, much more logically -- without!

jlay wrote:When you look at a painting, how do you know it has a painter?

When you look at an apparently random arrangement of colourful paint on the floor of an art gallery, do you know if it's a part of the exhibition, or was one of the decorators a little clumsy earlier in the day? Such things can be the result of random events. Sadly, if it were an accident, there's no way to prove the lack of a designer (the decorator may have felt he had something to offer the artistic community, done his worst, and then run off home for the afternoon). However, just because you can't disprove his existence, doesn't make him real!

MOS,
Are you telling me that you can't tell the difference in a created work and a paint spill? Oh brother/
Maybe Pollack, but the analogy is general. No need to undermine it with ridiculous tangents.

Where did the matter come from?

Traditional Big Bang theory, where the universe began as a singularity.
The universe was squeezed down to some minimum limits before (re-)expanding (string theory).

Where did the singularity come from? If the singularity existed, then that is not the beginning.
If the universe was squeezed down, then that was not the beginning. Where did the squeeze come from? Where did the matter that was squeezed come from?

These are all faith statements. You have faith that these are the origins. Let's remember that the BBT is a theory. It requires faith and an ideology to believe. Although many would hide behind the guise of being "scientific." No one saw it. Nearly all of science believes the universe had a beginning. yet you believe there was no beginner. That is just happened. The matter, just happened.

In both cases, all the matter for the universe existed before the bang.

Does this jive with the 2nd law or thermodynamics? are you saying you accept science, but will disregard it when necessary when it doesn't fit your faith?

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercur ... thing.html
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20u ... 20from.htm


Isaiah 53 is a very specific prophecy. You see you only demonstrate your stubborness and the falsity of your claim of open mindedness.
"I haven't read it, but I'm sure I can debunk it."

jlay wrote:Are you telling me that you can't tell the difference in a created work and a paint spill? Oh brother/

Sometimes, no, I cannot. Have you not been to a modern art gallery recently?

jlay wrote:These are all faith statements. You have faith that these are the origins.

No, I have evidence that these are the origins. (This, however, does not mean that I have (or, indeed, that anyone has) all the answers (yet).)

jlay wrote:Let's remember that the BBT is a theory.

Certainly!

jlay wrote:It requires faith and an ideology to believe.

The point is, this is the most reasonable explanation of the universe (as we know it today), based on research of the available data.

jlay wrote:Although many would hide behind the guise of being "scientific." No one saw it.

Nobody saw the tree in my back garden falling into my greenhouse. How do I know it happened? I can see the resulting evidence!

Now, if you read the second article you referenced, the author explicitly argues against the idea of a creator, preferring the idea that the universe has always existed. I quote:

So what is this mysterious source of energy that we are compelled to introduce? Many people will say that it is God and that He always existed. We either accept that or accept that the universe itself must have always existed.

We are now left with just these two possible solutions, either God created the universe and He always existed, or the universe itself always existed. The solution requires that something has always existed in order to avoid the problem of creating something out of nothing. The choice of introducing God is purely a matter of faith, for if we accept that God could have always existed then why not the universe? From a logical point of view within this model we do not need the existence of God, God is just a further complication that in turn would require to be created. If we ruthlessly apply Ockham's razor to the idea of introducing God into the model we are left with the universe always existing. However, for those of you of a religious nature allow me to make myself clear. I am NOT saying (here) that God does not exist, only that the idea of introducing God into the equation is not necessary in order to make it work.

I know that some would argue that God is necessary as a Creator and Grand Designer of the universe but I disagree. The universe can simply be the way it is by pure chance alone, it need not have been designed to be the way it is. For those that argue that the universe requires such a high degree of 'fine tuning' for things to be so well suited for our own creation and evolution that it could not have happened by chance alone I disagree again. If the universe were not so well suited for us then we wouldn't be here! The fact that we are here does not mean that the entire universe was designed just for our benefit.

Simple answer.

Since we have it on good science that the universe did NOT always exist, then it did begin. Causality.

I can site many more of those who think that everything came from nothing. In fact there is another thread going on now.

As I have tried to explain multiple times, matter cannot "just happen". As I said above, nobody (on Earth) has all the answers. Whether our universe was compressed to a singularity, whether it was compressed to the limits of string theory, or whether it is a black hole pocket within something bigger, the matter contained within it existed before the start of the universe (as we know it).

That is your problem not mine. Where did the matter come from????

Don't you think some of the minds in the scientific community would have noticed by now, if there were a discrepancy between the BBT and the laws of thermodynamics?

Yes, and that is why so many reject the something from nothing hypothesis. It is ideology is the guise of science. A way to explain away the "God factor."

If you actually read the second article, the author explicitly argues against the idea of a creator, preferring the idea that the universe has always existed. I quote:

That was my point. To show what lenghts of Atheistic faith some will go to explain the origins of the cosmos. The author did a pretty poor job of disguising his motives, no.

No, I have evidence that these are the origins.

Theories are not evidence in and of themselves. You have no evidence of pre-bang matter. You haven't handled ANY evidence, or seen any evidence first hand. You have faith in theories. That my friend, is religion.

jlay wrote:You have faith in theories. That my friend, is religion.

I don't remember whether it was this thread or another where I said this, but you can call "faith in theories" religion, but it isn't religion. Personally, I prefer to reserve the term "religion" for belief in the supernatural.

ManOfScience wrote:

jlay wrote:You have faith in theories. That my friend, is religion.

I don't remember whether it was this thread or another where I said this, but you can call "faith in theories" religion, but it isn't religion. Personally, I prefer to reserve the term "religion" for belief in the supernatural.

Define supernatural.

Then apply the definition to the scientific method and see what you get.

Bingo.

Where did the matter come from?

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
Esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.