Evidence for God from Science

Here are just some random questions that i've come across concerning the main arguments for God's existence.
1. The Cosmological argument: Many atheists say that we don't know very much about the Big Bang so its perfectly valid, in fact they say almost necessary, that we should conclude that we just don't know what caused the Big Bang. They will go on to say that we should not jump to the God explanation since we know so little about it.

2. The Fine tuning argument: Atheists will say things like "the earth was not made for us, we evolved for the earth". They say on the smaller scale that we simply evolved to 'fit' this world. They also say (this is one of the toughest ones i've seen) that we don't know if life could have started in other conditions. Therefore, we should not conclude that life was "fine-tuned" for us.

I'll think of some more later probably Thanks in advance for any thoughts/answers to some of my questions

Justin

SonofAletheia wrote:Here are just some random questions that i've come across concerning the main arguments for God's existence.
1. The Cosmological argument: Many atheists say that we don't know very much about the Big Bang so its perfectly valid, in fact they say almost necessary, that we should conclude that we just don't know what caused the Big Bang. They will go on to say that we should not jump to the God explanation since we know so little about it.

2. The Fine tuning argument: Atheists will say things like "the earth was not made for us, we evolved for the earth". They say on the smaller scale that we simply evolved to 'fit' this world. They also say (this is one of the toughest ones i've seen) that we don't know if life could have started in other conditions. Therefore, we should not conclude that life was "fine-tuned" for us.

I'll think of some more later probably Thanks in advance for any thoughts/answers to some of my questions

Justin

Hey Justin.

1. If Big bang is true, that doesn't mean that god doesn't exist. God could have caused big bang. You don't have to disprove the big bang theory to believe in God. But... science does not support a theory of a God, because there is no proof that he exists and no generally accepted scientific theory that needs him. An old book saying that there is a god, is not enough proof for most rational people. There are lots of books that say lots of things. But, like I said, you can keep believing in God and the Big Bang theory at the same time, despite a lack of strong proof for either one (there is much less proof for God though).

2. Yea, this one is going to be hard to argue, because its true. We did evolve for the earth and we still do as it changes. Just look at skin color. People near the equator have darker skin and people near the poles have lighter skin. That is human evolution to fit our environment. Can you really argue that God made the Earth round, with less light hitting near the poles, just so that the white people who he wanted to be in the north would not get sunburned? Does god make bacteria resistant to antibiotics? No, they evolve to their environment. Lets say bacteria developed religion. They might look around and say, "hey, God made my environment have antibiotics so that this antibiotic resistance gene would be effective." In actuality the antibiotic was put there to kill the bacteria. You would say: "God put oxygen on the earth so that we could breathe." when what you really should be saying is, "We evolved to use oxygen because the plants that were here before us created it and it also allows organisms to create energy much more efficiently, so it was to our evolutionary advantage to develop the electron transport chain which ends with electron donation to oxygen." After all, just like antibiotics, oxygen kills organisms that haven't adapted a system to protect themselves from it - obligate anaerobes.

Speaking of evolution, do you guys think religion will evolve again soon? Every time science explains something, religion fights like crazy to hold on to old beliefs, but then is forced to evolve or die. Someone else comes along with a religion that makes more sense, so people flock to it. We no longer have wind gods, sun gods, sea gods, moon gods, etc, because we have explained how those natural phenomenon work and science can predict the future in regards to these things (eclipses, tides etc) better than the old religions could (a god is angry/happy). So monotheism became very popular. You can't prove that there is no afterlife, so this God is here to stay, however many of the beliefs held by Christians, especially the creation story, does not fit at all with current scientific understanding. I would bet that Christianity will either change, or another religion will become dominant because it will incorporate the current scientific understanding of how the world came to be. What do you all think?

I might respond in a bit more detail later, but just a couple of short thoughts on each.

1. I would say that Christians who defend the cosmological argument are the ones that prefer the standard big bang model because it indicates that the universe began to exist (something that the Bible said a long time ago) and that it must have a cause (a cause that scientists can't explain).

2. The odds are VERY against life existing ANYWHERE in the universe, let alone on earth. Whether other forms of life are possible isn't really a concern, but there are a great number of improbable factor that work together before also admittedly unlikely evolution from bacteria to humans (assuming not only that its true but unguided) can take place. So there are different arguments here that someone could maybe explain better.

Steve, I'm actually posting these questions because I think both arguments are very much "evidence" for God's existence. I just have a few rough spots to work out in them so to speak.
The Cosmological argument perfectly fits with Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the Heaven and Earth." The Big Bang requires that the universe came by and from nothing. Atheists who understand the Big Bang try and figure out a way that does not include God in the explanation. But Christians are perfectly at home with the contemporary cosmological evidence. That's why I asked what people thought about when atheists say "oh well we just don't know how/why the Big Bang happened and we should not assume a supernatural power behind it." It seems to me that God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
"especially the creation story, does not fit at all with current scientific understanding" Perhaps you could explain this further? Because like I just mentioned, contemporary science, I would argue, very much validates the Biblical Creation. Its the atheists who is put in an awkward position when science confirmed the universe had a beginning.
As for the fine-tuning argument, its more talking about the constants and laws of the universe and how they are balanced on a knives edge to allow intelligent life to exist. For example, "Cambridge scientist Steven Hawking estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion had been smaller by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 it would have re-collapsed into a fireball. A stroke of luck or intelligent design by a designer?" Or, "Physicist and Astrobiologist P.C.W Davies concluded that a change in the strength of gravity (or the weak force) by one part in 10 followed by 100 zeroes would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The existence of life is either quite fortuitous or it was planned by a super-intelligence". So its not so much talking about micro-evolution. It brings up how the universe was "made" (many would argue) for intelligent life.

Its not my intention to get to off topic here but I do want to clarify my views Does anyone have any thoughts on my first post? On the responses I mentioned that skeptics give to both arguments?

Steve wrote: Hey Justin.

1. If Big bang is true, that doesn't mean that god doesn't exist. God could have caused big bang. You don't have to disprove the big bang theory to believe in God. But... science does not support a theory of a God, because there is no proof that he exists and no generally accepted scientific theory that needs him. An old book saying that there is a god, is not enough proof for most rational people. There are lots of books that say lots of things. But, like I said, you can keep believing in God and the Big Bang theory at the same time, despite a lack of strong proof for either one (there is much less proof for God though).

2. Yea, this one is going to be hard to argue, because its true. We did evolve for the earth and we still do as it changes. Just look at skin color. People near the equator have darker skin and people near the poles have lighter skin. That is human evolution to fit our environment. Can you really argue that God made the Earth round, with less light hitting near the poles, just so that the white people who he wanted to be in the north would not get sunburned? Does god make bacteria resistant to antibiotics? No, they evolve to their environment.

however many of the beliefs held by Christians, especially the creation story, does not fit at all with current scientific understanding. I would bet that Christianity will either change, or another religion will become dominant because it will incorporate the current scientific understanding of how the world came to be. What do you all think?

Hello Steve

In your first answer, you say God could have caused the big bang, but finish by saying "You can't believe in God and the Big Bang theory at the same time". That makes no sense, since you just stated that God could have caused it. You also say "science does not support a theory of God" but how have you come to this conclusion? Do you have scientific evidence that God cannot exist? If so, I would love to see it. You seem very confident that their is little proof of God. Also, have you actually read and analyzed that "old book"? Something tells me that you just glanced through it and stuck with your beliefs that it is old and stupid myths that would never be true.

In your second answer, you mainly refer to micro-evolution, which is true, and a part of nature. The problem is with macro-evolution. If there are billions of creatures on this planet, why are we the only ones that have evolved key attributes that are quite helpful for living for the earth, such as more powerful brains? Why isn't our world like Futurama, where we have multiple intelligent species? With random chance and evolution, it seems that a Futurama type world should be possible, and probable, even if there was only one other type of intelligent species.

Your last statement, saying how "the creation story, does not fit at all with current scientific understanding" is also something where I'm not on the same page as you. What is the "current scientific understanding" you are speaking of? Please explain.

eric246 wrote:In your second answer, you mainly refer to micro-evolution, which is true, and a part of nature. The problem is with macro-evolution.

I wouldn't call it micro-evolution, rather adaptation or natural selection. Otherwise someone who isn't well informed may think that it doesn't take a big leap of faith to believe in macroevolution if it happens on the micro level. Just a note.

Hi Steve

Steve wrote:But... science does not support a theory of a God, because there is no proof that he exists and no generally accepted scientific theory that needs him.

1. I did not know that science had a voice; and I didn’t know it was partisan.

2. I also did not know that science has “needs”. This is an education!

But, like I said, you can keep believing in God and the Big Bang theory at the same time, despite a lack of strong proof for either one (there is much less proof for God though).

A lack of strong support for a Big Bang? I say “support” because you are using “proof” rather carelessly. Can you name for me a competing theory which has stronger support than the standard Big bang model?

Every time science explains something, religion fights like crazy to hold on to old beliefs, but then is forced to evolve or die.

Examples please.

Someone else comes along with a religion that makes more sense, so people flock to it. We no longer have wind gods, sun gods, sea gods, moon gods, etc, because we have explained how those natural phenomenon work and science can predict the future in regards to these things (eclipses, tides etc) better than the old religions could (a god is angry/happy). So monotheism became very popular.

1. So now I’ll have to ask you to provide the evidence of a natural succession, implied in your above quote, in order to support your theory of religion evolving according to scientific understanding. Please show the correlation of scientific understanding and an abolition of wind/storm gods.

2. And please provide the evidence of monotheism “becoming” very popular due to the ‘heavy blow’ of the scientific doc martin boot.

You can't prove that there is no afterlife, so this God is here to stay, however many of the beliefs held by Christians, especially the creation story, does not fit at all with current scientific understanding.

Just assertion with no substance.

I would bet that Christianity will either change, or another religion will become dominant because it will incorporate the current scientific understanding of how the world came to be. What do you all think?

What current scientific understanding is in conflict with Christianity? Please alert us to this phenomenon.

So back to my orignal questions:

1) How would you respond to an atheist/materialist that says "we should not say God created the universe when we know so little about the Big Bang. The safest/simplest answer is just to say we don't know how our universe started. We should not assume a God when science will probably explain the Big Bang in time"?
2) Or "The fine-tuning argument is not a valid argument for a creator because we don't know if life could have existed in other conditions"?

Are these valid objections to two of the main arguments for God?

SonofAletheia wrote:So back to my orignal questions:

1) How would you respond to an atheist/materialist that says "we should not say God created the universe when we know so little about the Big Bang. The safest/simplest answer is just to say we don't know how our universe started. We should not assume a God when science will probably explain the Big Bang in time"?
2) Or "The fine-tuning argument is not a valid argument for a creator because we don't know if life could have existed in other conditions"?

Are these valid objections to two of the main arguments for God?

logically God is a pretty good guess IMO. Science might develop a better theory for the "start" of the universe, but it will never be able to satisfactorily describe how that first event came to be, as logically it's impossible. That's the main point religious arguments focus on, you can swap the words Big Bang with any other theory and the objection doesn't change.

What do you all think?

I don't think I have enough time to reply to all the issues I have with your position.

In regards to the argument against fine tuning, that we have evolved to this world.
yes, this is true, it's kind of a chick or the egg argument right?
Is the universe fine tune for US or are we fine tuned for the universe?
Well, the issue is that from what we have explored of the universe that we know, our is the only life that is fine tuned to the universe.
And considering that vastness of the universe, that NO OTHER planet or life has yet been found, well...it is something of a "miracle", no?
Science tells us that the universe is the way it is because it can be no other way, as such, science tell us that the universe IS fine tuned for OUR kind of life because if it wasn't, we wouldn't here.
We may have evolved to the type of species we have on this plant BECAUSE of the fine tuning of the universe, but that would only happen IF the univer WAS fien tuned for THIS type of life.

Just to add on,

If I remeber correctly the big bang theory was thought up by a chistian minister in france based off the bible. Soo, I really would not say the big bang theory disproves christianity at all.

Murray wrote:Just to add on,

If I remeber correctly the big bang theory was thought up by a chistian minister in france based off the bible. Soo, I really would not say the big bang theory disproves christianity at all.

A Catholic priest (George Lamaitre), from Belgium, and he proposed it while at MIT. Einstein scoffed at the idea at first then later accepted it (called it the biggest mistake he ever made). The 'big bang' was coined as a derogatory term at first but it stuck. It is a misnomer actually, since it wasn't big (an incredibly small singularity) and there was no bang (since the laws of physics and sound waves were created after the initial event).