Evidence for God from Science

ES
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…

Ken
I miswrote that. I meant when the singularity expanded to become what we call the Universe, that was called the Big bang.


ES
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.

Ken
The big bang doesn’t have an actual existence, it is just what we called the expansion of the singularity.
When they say the Universe had a beginning, they mean when the singularity expanded, that was the beginning. Able was focusing on science saying the universe had a beginning and ignoring that beginning was simply the expansion of the singularity.

ES
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

Ken
My point was; the Universe came from the Singularity.

Ken

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

Ken
Or matter could be in a constant state of contraction and expansion.

Paulsacramento
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.

Ken
It’s just semantics; it’s all matter. The matter known as the singularity expanded to become matter known as the Universe.

Ken

ken

I just wanted to say you did an excellent job in response to my post (top of this page). Good job in priority and clarity. I feel better about your knowledge and i bet you feel better about your explanation. Thanks

Ken
Or matter could be in a constant state of contraction and expansion.

Here then is the only problem you have with current scientific theory. this expansion and contraction idea is not in the cards. There is nothing in the universe that obeys that law and nothing can come out of the universe with consistent properties involving both... even over a long time (almost 14 billion years so far) In fact, the universe is not only continually expanding, it is expanding at a faster rate today than it did in it's standard growth pattern (that should be effected by gravity). This is where the dark matter stuff comes in and Hannah will need to enter in to the conversation for much better clarity than I can offer.

But the point is this... the original expansion of the singularity (in my world, the physical emanation of the original thought of God that began creation) has grown is growing and will continue to grow, never contracting, in fact gaining momentum to faster expansion as we speak. This continued growth allows us to subjectively assume that there was in fact an initial beginning, not a regurgitation of material for another use, but original material for this universe and none other. Now the question becomes... how and even more importantly now (because we know it did begin, we're just nor exactly sure how) but why ... why did the universe begin... and that my friend is the essence of the Creator. Only an intelligent, designing, first cause entity would have that kind of reasoning and power to make it.

http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-u ... today.html

this article is from January 2015 and is the best,most recent scientific explanation (layman's) we could ask for. It won't take you 15 minutes to read ... so read it and feel better about your newest our latest scientific discovery in to the creation of our universe.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:ken

I just wanted to say you did an excellent job in response to my post (top of this page). Good job in priority and clarity. I feel better about your knowledge and i bet you feel better about your explanation. Thanks

Ken
Or matter could be in a constant state of contraction and expansion.

Here then is the only problem you have with current scientific theory. this expansion and contraction idea is not in the cards. There is nothing in the universe that obeys that law and nothing can come out of the universe with consistent properties involving both... even over a long time (almost 14 billion years so far) In fact, the universe is not only continually expanding, it is expanding at a faster rate today than it did in it's standard growth pattern (that should be effected by gravity). This is where the dark matter stuff comes in and Hannah will need to enter in to the conversation for much better clarity than I can offer.

But the point is this... the original expansion of the singularity (in my world the original thought of God that began creation) has grown is growing and will continue to grow, never contracting, in fact gaining momentum to faster expansion as we speak. This continued growth allows us to subjectively assume that there was in fact an initial beginning, not a regurgitation of material for another use, but original material for this universe and none other. Now the question becomes... how and even more importantly now (because we know it did begin, we're just nor exactly sure how) but why ... why did the universe begin... and that my friend is the essence of the Creator. Only an intelligent, designing, first cause entity would have that kind of reasoning and power to make it.

http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-u ... today.html

this article is from January 2015 and is the best,most recent scientific explanation (layman's) we could ask for. It won't take you 15 minutes to read ... so read it and feel better about your newest our latest scientific discovery in to the creation of our universe.

Just a question.Why do you say the expanding universe will never contract back to that single point? Just a question because science seems to indicate that universe expanding is like a spring being stretched out that will one day contract back,and this is also indicated in the bible as well.Hebrews 1:12 " And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up,and they shall be changed: But thou art the same,And thy years shall not fail.

Also Revelation 20:11 " And I saw a great white throne,and him that sat on it,from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

able, here is a NASA article that will better explain the effects of dark matter that will not allow the contraction of the approx. 4% of matter (us and all we see) that is dwarfed by the dark matter and dark energy 95%+ that is doing the expanding and we (the material universe) are basically along for the ride.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... ludes.html

This won't take but a few minutes to read and will point you in other directions for more information.

I am not as well versed on biblical verses that may or may not attend to the current science of continual expansion. If there is a contradiction, remember that all things are possible through God and there may either be another answer or another miracle performed ...

EssentialSacrifice wrote:able, here is a NASA article that will better explain the effects of dark matter that will not allow the contraction of the approx. 4% of matter (us and all we see) that is dwarfed by the dark matter and dark energy 95%+ that is doing the expanding and we (the material universe) are basically along for the ride.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... ludes.html

This won't take but a few minutes to read and will point you in other directions for more information.

I am not as well versed on biblical verses that may or may not attend to the current science of continual expansion. If there is a contradiction, remember that all things are possible through God and there may either be another answer or another miracle performed ...

Thanks for the link.I was just wanting to know what it was based on,it still shows the universe is not eternal though and will eventually freeze.

I don't know which link to believe,the one I posted or this one.They seem to contradict each other if we go by the big bang.

it still shows the universe is not eternal though and will eventually freeze.

I guess so able. trillions of years from now, but that would appear to be the universal fate. Revelation 21:1 - 21:27

Kenny wrote:Paulsacramento
Actually, the singularity could have existed eternally even, it doesn't matter because even if that is the case, SOMETHING CAUSED it to “expand

Ken
Or matter could be in a constant state of contraction and expansion.

Paulsacramento
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.

Ken
It’s just semantics; it’s all matter. The matter known as the singularity expanded to become matter known as the Universe.

Ken

Science disagrees with those views you have Ken.

Ken, you are talking about the singularity as if it was some "material" thing.
You realize that it was NOT, right?

You have read the definitions of what a singularity is right?

abel wrote:
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

and

I don't know which link to believe,the one I posted or this one.They seem to contradict each other if we go by the big bang.

abel, your link is 5 years younger than the one i used, from 2010. The information you have supplied is substantially newer. It also has used the info from my link to the ends of your/their theory of a universe infinite and static. I think this is an area where I can absolutely say i have no business expounding and am very willing to let it all play out as it surely will. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to me or not... I am senseless in these matters and am at best able to regurgitate what I have read only.

This I do know, Isaiah 55:8, and will rely on till the end of days...

Paulsacramento
Science disagrees with those views you have Ken

Ken
Science disagrees with the view "God did it" as well! Hasn’t stopped anyone from believing though. I never claimed that as my view, I was just listing other possibilities than the ones listed in that conversation.

Paulsacramento
Ken, you are talking about the singularity as if it was some "material" thing.
You realize that it was NOT, right?

You have read the definitions of what a singularity is right?

Ken
I didn’t know the singularity that expanded to become the Universe was defined as non-material. What is it defined as then? And where did you get this information?


Ken

Paulsacramento
Science disagrees with those views you have Ken

Ken
Science disagrees with the view "God did it" as well! Hasn’t stopped anyone from believing though. I never claimed that as my view, I was just listing other possibilities than the ones listed in that conversation.

That is a non-issue, the issue is that science disagrees with your SCIENTIFIC comment.
Science makes no statement on the cause of the big bang, only that it happened.

Paulsacramento
Ken, you are talking about the singularity as if it was some "material" thing.
You realize that it was NOT, right?

You have read the definitions of what a singularity is right?

Ken
I didn’t know the singularity that expanded to become the Universe was defined as non-material. What is it defined as then? And where did you get this information?


Ken

I posted the definitions of singularity, didn't you see them?

An example of a singularity is a black hole.
There is nothing material about a black hole.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

abel wrote:
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

and

I don't know which link to believe,the one I posted or this one.They seem to contradict each other if we go by the big bang.

abel, your link is 5 years younger than the one i used, from 2010. The information you have supplied is substantially newer. It also has used the info from my link to the ends of your/their theory of a universe infinite and static. I think this is an area where I can absolutely say i have no business expounding and am very willing to let it all play out as it surely will. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to me or not... I am senseless in these matters and am at best able to regurgitate what I have read only.

This I do know, Isaiah 55:8, and will rely on till the end of days...

Well there are scientists who theorize that the universe had no beginning and that it has no end however this is just theoretical science which is reflected in the article I posted but it has not been substantiated yet and I don't think it will because so far no science has come out that contradicts the bible and I don't see it happening in the future.

What is happening is as time goes on and man makes discoveries it is only confirming God's word true,confirming it.This makes certain people uncomfortable who think that we don't need evidence for out faith but this is irrelevant to what is happening over time.God's word is being confirmed true and certain scientists don't like it and are trying to change this,but so far science has only confirmed God's word true.

This does not mean that there won't be false science promoted as the truth but just that if it is? There will be no evidence behind it.One thing that bothers me about these scientists theorizing the universe had no beginning and is eternal is that it tramples on the laws of thermodynamics as if they have no effect on the universe.

We know the laws of physics break down at the singularity and did not come into existence until the expansion and they effect this universe.We have both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics effecting the universe and these laws by themselves prove the universe is not eternal and cannot go on forever and there are scientists who don't like this but it has to be substantiated.

PaulSacramento wrote: That is a non-issue, the issue is that science disagrees with your SCIENTIFIC comment.
Science makes no statement on the cause of the big bang, only that it happened.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I never said that was a scientific comment; I never even implied that was my opinion! I was just listing a possibility to refute the claim that something had to cause the Universe to expand.

PaulSacramento wrote: I posted the definitions of singularity, didn't you see them?

An example of a singularity is a black hole.
There is nothing material about a black hole.

If I am not mistaken, a black hole would be an example of a Curvature Singularity; right? I was talking about the singularity that expanded to become the Universe. Do you have anything that states what this singularity consisted of?

Ken