Evidence for God from Science

...and the universe began (was created, through the Big Bang), and scientists appoint the Big Bang as being the most correct theory about how our universe began, why don't they belive in some kind of Creator? This may be a silly question, but isnt it obvious that God exists if the universe was started? The question "what existed before the Big Bang" doesnt belong to the realm of science but rather for the realm of theology, and thus obviously some kind of deity (biblical or not) why God is still denied by scientists? After all it could be a first-cause God, one that started the Universe and "left" it.

Yahweh bless you
LT

Most scientists do not deny the existence of God out of hand (and I am one). Being probably the most reasonable people in the world, they take the most reasonable response, which is that unless God decides to ride down from Heaven in a fiery chariot then we cannot know whether God exists or not, and as such the question is meaningless. Most scientists DO reject organized religion, as we see it's tenets as largely unrealistic and even harmful. I will grant you that the origin of the universe is probably the best scientific evidence for the existence of God, because no matter how you slice it you have to violate the first law of thermodynamics.

jady wrote:Most scientists do not deny the existence of God out of hand (and I am one). Being probably the most reasonable people in the world, they take the most reasonable response, which is that unless God decides to ride down from Heaven in a fiery chariot then we cannot know whether God exists or not, and as such the question is meaningless. Most scientists DO reject organized religion, as we see it's tenets as largely unrealistic and even harmful. I will grant you that the origin of the universe is probably the best scientific evidence for the existence of God, because no matter how you slice it you have to violate the first law of thermodynamics.

So most scientists are agnostics? I too, reject organized religion. In fact, I belive that the Judeo-Christian God outdated religion, after all, he wants a relationship with us, not religion. Going to the church and doing good deeds can't save you.

Well, then I guess we agree. I have to warn you that this will probably be the last time

Looking for the Truth wrote:

jady wrote:Most scientists do not deny the existence of God out of hand (and I am one). Being probably the most reasonable people in the world, they take the most reasonable response, which is that unless God decides to ride down from Heaven in a fiery chariot then we cannot know whether God exists or not, and as such the question is meaningless. Most scientists DO reject organized religion, as we see it's tenets as largely unrealistic and even harmful. I will grant you that the origin of the universe is probably the best scientific evidence for the existence of God, because no matter how you slice it you have to violate the first law of thermodynamics.

So, most scientists are agnostics? I too, reject organized religion. In fact, I belive that the Judeo-Christian God outdated religion, after all, he wants a relationship with us, not religion. Going to the church and doing good deeds can't save you. I think that accepting the existence of the deist god wouldn't be very hard for a scientist, after all the design in the universe is too abundant to be ignored, even the atheists recognize that.

By the way, jady, what do you do as a scientist? What are your beliefs?

I study fruit fly olfaction (smell). I know, it sounds too good to be true. Oddly enough I had a use for it earlier to describe not one but TWO of my points on broader subjects (homosexuality and evolution). Never thought that would happen.

I am an agnostic, but I believe that everybody is agnostic; only some of us admit it. I was raised methodist. As I say in my thread about questions, I would truly love it, in a completely non-sarcastic way, if somebody could convince me that a particular religion is true. Who wouldn't love to experience that freedom? However, I doubt that is going to happen any time soon.

jady wrote:I study fruit fly olfaction (smell). I know, it sounds too good to be true. Oddly enough I had a use for it earlier to describe not one but TWO of my points on broader subjects (homosexuality and evolution). Never thought that would happen.

I am an agnostic, but I believe that everybody is agnostic; only some of us admit it. I was raised methodist. As I say in my thread about questions, I would truly love it, in a completely non-sarcastic way, if somebody could convince me that a particular religion is true. Who wouldn't love to experience that freedom? However, I doubt that is going to happen any time soon.

Why dont you create a thread at the Questions for Christians sub-forum, maybe we can adress your issues with Christianity there. Back on topic, as a scientist do you think that some scientists are afraid to openly express belief in God? Is belief in God growing or decreasing among scientists (as a scientist you could give us better insight on the subject)?

Two Points)

#1 A majority of the members of the American Academy of Science are considered athiests, however the term is open to interperetation. In many cases it is a belief that there may be a higher power or that there may not be a higher power, but what ever it is it is very unlikely to come in the form of that that is described in the Bible.


#2 The Prime Mover Argument (which is what you are referring to) is self contradictory. The logic follows that something must have been the first cause because nothing can be infinite, and then assigns that first cause to "God." However, the concept of an infinite God leads to a logical fallacy. If nothing can be infinite, then neither can God. If *something* can be infinite, then there's no need for a first cause.

It is just as plausible that the universe itself posses the very same qualities of infiniteness that creationists assign to God. In fact, there are many many scenarios that one can come up with that don't involve a sentient creator.

Also keep in mind that the Big Bang theory answers the question "where did this universe come from?" as far back as that question can be answered via science. What came before the Big Bang is an unknown and is treated as such by scientists.

Banky,

A couple of things I would respond to in your post above.

I can't find a specific study with regard to the American Academy of Science that objectively measures belief to where a majority would be considered "atheists." I've seen claims to that effect by many. Assuming this is correct (which I don't necessarily concede)

1. It's a fairly small subset of all scientists.
2. The definition of atheist in that context would appear to have to be excedingly broad.

A quick look about the web from some relevant information in this field yielded this.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ ... s_god.html

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The Prime Mover argument is only self-contradictory to the extent that you frame the question in a purely materialistic system which of course is what science, by definition is limited to.

As you note, the Big Bang theory only answers as far back as science can, but what comes before that is being addressed by such disciplines as String Theory etc, which then begins to take on a remarkable similarity to some issues and manners or explanation that sound remarkably similar to what theologians have been coming up with for millenia prior. The frame of reference is simply shifted to accomodate the speculation.

Regards,

Bart

On the rejection of organized religion.
It is a bit off topic so please indulge me as I state my opinion.

I think it is a mistake to believe or teach that Jesus Christ nullified or rejected organized religion. It is more correct to say He rejected abberant teaching and the traditions of men. We know there is one true church according to scripture, but in the Book of Revelation, Jesus addresses seven churches. And while he finds fault with all of them (except perhaps one), he condemns none. The teaching, that God rejects religion is not to be found in the Bible. Why would Christians reject organised religion and yet embrace nationalism which is also destructive and responsible for extreme injustice and violence in the world?

Forum Monk wrote:On the rejection of organized religion.
It is a bit off topic so please indulge me as I state my opinion.

I think it is a mistake to believe or teach that Jesus Christ nullified or rejected organized religion. It is more correct to say He rejected abberant teaching and the traditions of men. We know there is one true church according to scripture, but in the Book of Revelation, Jesus addresses seven churches. And while he finds fault with all of them (except perhaps one), he condemns none. The teaching, that God rejects religion is not to be found in the Bible. Why would Christians reject organised religion and yet embrace nationalism which is also destructive and responsible for extreme injustice and violence and in the world?

Forum Monk,

I think you're right. I do believe Jesus rejected raising the "organization" above the "organism." Jesus appeared, at least as far as the Pharisees were concerned, to attack religious habit and framework devoid of spiritual life and relationship with God driving it.

In Revelation, I think the 7 churches addressed are geographic and that would not negate the sense of the Universal Church which is comprised of all true believers.

In the Spirit of Will Rogers, I wonder if there are some out there who might paraphrase one of his quotes in politics to something like, "I don't believe in organized religion .... I'm a Southern Baptist."

Blessings,

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:In Revelation, I think the 7 churches addressed are geographic and that would not negate the sense of the Universal Church which is comprised of all true believers.

I agree. The regional churches did not negate the universal church. The point is, Jesus recognized those "churches" which were organized and functioning within the context of local cultural customs and religious/pagan influences. They in effect, were the organized Christian religion of their day.

Canuckster1127 wrote:1. It's a fairly small subset of all scientists.

I was responding to a point about "what scientists believe." One is free to define "scientist" how ever they wish, but I thought that providing information about what we typically, as Americans, consider scientists woul dbe appropriate.

If you go into Europe, the Soviet Union, or China, the proportion of athiests will likely be higher. In India, Israel, and the Middle East, it will be lower.

Nevertheless, the leading scientists in a fairly religious country are far less likely to believe in "God" than the population. Draw whatever conclusions from those statistics that you like.

Canuckster1127 wrote:2. The definition of atheist in that context would appear to have to be excedingly broad.

No broader than the definition of a Christian. Some sects allow the definition to be somewhat broad (belief that Jesus is God, etc.) while others insist that they are the only true Christians and the others are all pretenders (the same can be said about Shite vrs Sunni Muslims).

Here is a little background or the differnt groups of athiests (though don't confuse them with religious groups. Athiests don't normally congregate beased on their belief system).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athiest

The term "atheist" as I understand it being used in the US generally means "A firm belief that no God in the form of anything written down in religious books exists." I believe only the "hard atheists" have a very firm belief that there absolutely, positively is nothing out there beyond our understanding of the laws of physics, but these fill the monority.

Re: 2/3 of scientists....social scientists...etc.

Again, it all depends on how you define what a scientist is. If you want to include social scientist in the statsitic, then that's fine. But then I'm not exactly sure what information you would glean from that anymore than if you just sampled "college graduates" for example. IOW, I think the category becomes to broad to realy draw any conclusions from it. Physicists, biologists, and chemsists are going to draw different conclusions than, say, sociologists, historians, and philosophers. But, at the same time, it's good that you brought forth a clarification because what is more imporatant than the words we use is the message being conveyed.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Prime Mover argument is only self-contradictory to the extent that you frame the question in a purely materialistic system which of course is what science, by definition is limited to.

I think where it falls apart is the "nothing can be infite" part. If that is meant as an absolute, then it must also apply to God. If it is meant to imply only the physical, then I'll add that its a very big assumption considering that none of us we here to see the beginning and, to this date, we have not manage to either create or destroy matter/energy.

In other words, not only have we not manage to prove that EVERYTHING is finite (which you would have to to prove nothing is infinte), we haven't even shown a single case where something is finte. So, I'll contend that evidence points to the idea that *everything* is inifinite.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Forum Monk wrote:On the rejection of organized religion.
It is a bit off topic so please indulge me as I state my opinion.

I think it is a mistake to believe or teach that Jesus Christ nullified or rejected organized religion. It is more correct to say He rejected abberant teaching and the traditions of men. We know there is one true church according to scripture, but in the Book of Revelation, Jesus addresses seven churches. And while he finds fault with all of them (except perhaps one), he condemns none. The teaching, that God rejects religion is not to be found in the Bible. Why would Christians reject organised religion and yet embrace nationalism which is also destructive and responsible for extreme injustice and violence and in the world?

Forum Monk,

I think you're right. I do believe Jesus rejected raising the "organization" above the "organism." Jesus appeared, at least as far as the Pharisees were concerned, to attack religious habit and framework devoid of spiritual life and relationship with God driving it.

In Revelation, I think the 7 churches addressed are geographic and that would not negate the sense of the Universal Church which is comprised of all true believers.

In the Spirit of Will Rogers, I wonder if there are some out there who might paraphrase one of his quotes in politics to something like, "I don't believe in organized religion .... I'm a Southern Baptist."

Blessings,

Bart

Hi - how does string theory replace the need for an infinite creator? Surely string theory is still a materialistic answer and that material still needs to be explained. Could someone explain this to me please?

Silvertusk

String Theory doesn't replace the need for a creator. It simply illustrates how Science has to contort and adapt to explain things without a creator. When you look closely at String Theory and listen to what is being said and how it is framed, it appears to me to be more metaphysical than pure science.