Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I have given evidence.It is you that can't and won't.This is not a one-sided thing where I show how the evidence points to the God of the bible being the cause and creator and you just ignore it.It is you that has not given any evidence or reason to reject God as the cause or creator.You reject God,but for absolutely no reason,no evidence,no substantiated science,just an opinion based on imagination.

If you've given evidence, I must have missed it. Please give me the date and time of the post you presented this evidence on and I will go back and read it.

Ken

Just above I gave logic,reason and evidence that points to God being a cause or creator for the universe.

Just above? The last post you made, all you did was claim to give evidence. Again; please give the date and time of this post so I can go back and read it

Ken

I pointed out both science behind the big bang and the bible said the universe had a beginning,this is evidence the bible is true.It is you that have not given any evidence or reason but yet reject mine.

I reject yours because science is very specific about where the Big Bang came from! It came from the singularity. You can't use the bits and pieces of science to support your agenda then ignore the part of science that rejects it and expect to be taken seriously

Ken

Kenny wrote: I reject yours because science is very specific about where the Big Bang came from! It came from the singularity. You can't use the bits and pieces of science to support your agenda then ignore the part of science that rejects it and expect to be taken seriously

Ken

And how did the singularity occur? What caused it?

Kenny wrote:
I pointed out both science behind the big bang and the bible said the universe had a beginning,this is evidence the bible is true.It is you that have not given any evidence or reason but yet reject mine.

I reject yours because science is very specific about where the Big Bang came from! It came from the singularity. You can't use the bits and pieces of science to support your agenda then ignore the part of science that rejects it and expect to be taken seriously

Ken

[/quote]

No, this is not correct.
Science SPECULATES that it started off as a singularity not that it came from one.
There is no proof of course and it is based solely on theoretical quantum mechanics.

Simply search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity and thus, all the laws of physics. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[21] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[22][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies[citation needed], the universe has an estimated age of 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years.[23] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe.

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote: I reject yours because science is very specific about where the Big Bang came from! It came from the singularity. You can't use the bits and pieces of science to support your agenda then ignore the part of science that rejects it and expect to be taken seriously

Ken

And how did the singularity occur? What caused it?

Actually, the singularity could have existed eternally even, it doesn't matter because even if that is the case, SOMETHING CAUSED it to "expand".

Never thought of that....

My thoughts on the Big Bang are that God caused it or brought it into being by His will. Kinda like an idea, a thought. He willed it into being through His thought. I`ve always thought of the Big Bang to be the ultimate flash of inspiration from God. Having typed that..... I`m now wondering if that`s possible? Can God have a flash of inspiration as it suggests that this idea then has an external source.

reject yours because science is very specific about where the Big Bang came from! It came from the singularity. You can't use the bits and pieces of science to support your agenda then ignore the part of science that rejects it and expect to be taken seriously

ken, why is it you always seem to be a dog chasing it's tail, between a rock and a hard place or the pot calling the kettle black ... this response is indicative of your normal reply... here's what i mean,

Able said :
I pointed out both science behind the big bang and the bible said the universe had a beginning,this is evidence the bible is true.It is you that have not given any evidence or reason but yet reject mine.

You reject this because science is very specific but then follow it up with knowing the Big Bang came from the singularity... it did not "come" from the singularity, they are one and the same... now to go further, answers storyteller's question... where in fact did the BB come from, not what is it... where did it come from... ? Perhaps then you'll arrive at ables contention of the where's not further definition of the what.

secondly, you'll need to define what bits and pieces able is using in support his agenda (of which I am not sure he has, information yes, agenda ? not so sure)

thirdly, you'll need to define the parts he has used and show how science rejects them...
lastly if you cannot or will not, how can you be expected to be taken seriously aka: the pot calling the kettle black.

You really can't just say, making carte blanche statements without support. You do as you tell others not to, so how is that in any way constructive ? Give examples of your proponents for argument then make your claims. Otherwise, it's like a dog chasing it's tail and never knowing the why's or the wherefores.

the singularity could have existed eternally

This is just conjecture... what else in the universe can you site that is eternal ? As you said thoughts are not real, no more real than the Easter Bunny so why should this be taken seriously ?

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

the singularity could have existed eternally

This is just conjecture... what else in the universe can you site that is eternal ? As you said thoughts are not real, no more real than the Easter Bunny so why should this be taken seriously ?

Of course it is conjecture and irrelevant, that was my point.

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote: I reject yours because science is very specific about where the Big Bang came from! It came from the singularity. You can't use the bits and pieces of science to support your agenda then ignore the part of science that rejects it and expect to be taken seriously

Ken

And how did the singularity occur? What caused it?

Science does not know. They can only go back to the singularity.

K

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:
I pointed out both science behind the big bang and the bible said the universe had a beginning,this is evidence the bible is true.It is you that have not given any evidence or reason but yet reject mine.

I reject yours because science is very specific about where the Big Bang came from! It came from the singularity. You can't use the bits and pieces of science to support your agenda then ignore the part of science that rejects it and expect to be taken seriously

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:[No, this is not correct.
Science SPECULATES that it started off as a singularity not that it came from one.
There is no proof of course and it is based solely on theoretical quantum mechanics.

If you start from the position that the Universe has a beginning, and the Universe and the singularity are the same, unless science claims a beginning to the singularity, which it does not; you can't claim the Universe has a beginning.

Ken

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity and thus, all the laws of physics. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[21] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[22][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies[citation needed], the universe has an estimated age of 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years.[23] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe.
PaulSacramento

ken wrote:
If you start from the position that the Universe has a beginning, and the Universe and the singularity are the same, unless science claims a beginning to the singularity, which it does not; you can't claim the Universe has a beginning.

IMO, this is inverse thinking... the Universe has a beginning... it is not the same as the singularity, science does claim a beginning to the universe, as well as it has been defined so far,(see Paul's extrapolation quote above) so you can claim both the universe began at some point, but the singularity you cannot yet.

If you start from the position that the Universe has a beginning, and the Universe and the singularity are the same, unless science claims a beginning to the singularity, which it does not; you can't claim the Universe has a beginning.

Ken

This is why laypeople should NOT "preach" science they don't really understand...

Ken, the Universe and the singularity are NOT the same thing, no one said that.
The big bang that started the expansion of what we call the universe, were the same thing.

The universe as we know it now is expanding and it is expanding at a constant rate, which means that it had a beginning point and that point was a singularity we call "the big bang".
No one knows what caused the singularity.

So what is a singularity?

In physics, which is what we are talking about here:
(physics) a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes
or

Quoting Stephen Hawkin's definition: "A point in space-time at which the space-time curvature becomes infinite."

or

When a physicist refers to a singularity he or she is generally referring to a quantity which is infinite.

In short, a state/moment in spacetime that is infinite in properties.

In our standard model of cosmology, the universe we live in began as a spacetime singularity with infinite temperature and density.

And who do we know that is infinite?

The big bang is established science backed up by the rigorous scientific method.There are scientists who believe the universe may not have had a beginning but it is just theoretical science and has not been rigorously tested by the scientific method and is not accepted by all scientists.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... verse.html