Evidence for God from Science

There is no proof for the existence of non-existence, so existence has always existed.

That said, our Big Bang is the the result of a star collapsing to black hole in another dimension. And now there's a theory backing it up:

Our universe at home within a larger universe? So suggests physicist's wormhole research

Could our universe be located within the interior of a wormhole which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe?

Such a scenario in which the universe is born from inside a wormhole (also called an Einstein-Rosen Bridge) is suggested in a paper from Indiana University theoretical physicist Nikodem Poplawski in Physics Letters B. The final version of the paper was available online March 29 and will be published in the journal edition April 12.

Poplawski takes advantage of the Euclidean-based coordinate system called isotropic coordinates to describe the gravitational field of a black hole and to model the radial geodesic motion of a massive particle into a black hole.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 172648.htm

The Big Bang came from between the left and right ears of an ignorant mortal.

dfnj wrote:There is no proof for the existence of non-existence, so existence has always existed.

That said, our Big Bang is the the result of a star collapsing to black hole in another dimension. And now there's a theory backing it up:

That is quite an assertion - care to back that up with some evidence? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Besides do you realise what you saying? How can you have proof of non-existence in the first place - by definition there should be no proof which ironically lends itself to evidence of non-existence anyway.

There is no proof for the existence of non-existence, so existence has always existed.

statements like this, above = If you wind em up ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcRf0y5-_Uw ... just sayin ... seems like you're in an awful hurry to go nowhere !

dfnj wrote:There is no proof for the existence of non-existence, so existence has always existed.

That said, our Big Bang is the the result of a star collapsing to black hole in another dimension. And now there's a theory backing it up:

Our universe at home within a larger universe? So suggests physicist's wormhole research

Could our universe be located within the interior of a wormhole which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe?

Such a scenario in which the universe is born from inside a wormhole (also called an Einstein-Rosen Bridge) is suggested in a paper from Indiana University theoretical physicist Nikodem Poplawski in Physics Letters B. The final version of the paper was available online March 29 and will be published in the journal edition April 12.

Poplawski takes advantage of the Euclidean-based coordinate system called isotropic coordinates to describe the gravitational field of a black hole and to model the radial geodesic motion of a massive particle into a black hole.

//www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406172648.htm

Well, until I see a worm I'm not believing in a wormhole.
What a scary thought. Our universe was born in a giant wormhole.
What if the worm returns? We'll all be doomed!

dfnj wrote:There is no proof for the existence of non-existence, so existence has always existed.

That said, our Big Bang is the the result of a star collapsing to black hole in another dimension. And now there's a theory backing it up:

Our universe at home within a larger universe? So suggests physicist's wormhole research

Could our universe be located within the interior of a wormhole which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe?

Such a scenario in which the universe is born from inside a wormhole (also called an Einstein-Rosen Bridge) is suggested in a paper from Indiana University theoretical physicist Nikodem Poplawski in Physics Letters B. The final version of the paper was available online March 29 and will be published in the journal edition April 12.

Poplawski takes advantage of the Euclidean-based coordinate system called isotropic coordinates to describe the gravitational field of a black hole and to model the radial geodesic motion of a massive particle into a black hole.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 172648.htm

That isn't even a theory, it is at best speculation.

I always thought theories needing backing up.
I didn't know they could be used to back up their own ideas.

Scientific hypothesis come and go like crazy , can't be bothered to Carew about the latest one

dfnj wrote:That said, our Big Bang is the the result of a star collapsing to black hole in another dimension. And now there's a theory backing it up:

Our universe at home within a larger universe? So suggests physicist's wormhole research

Could our universe be located within the interior of a wormhole which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe?

Such a scenario in which the universe is born from inside a wormhole (also called an Einstein-Rosen Bridge) is suggested in a paper from Indiana University theoretical physicist Nikodem Poplawski in Physics Letters B. The final version of the paper was available online March 29 and will be published in the journal edition April 12.

Poplawski takes advantage of the Euclidean-based coordinate system called isotropic coordinates to describe the gravitational field of a black hole and to model the radial geodesic motion of a massive particle into a black hole.

Even if that is proved true, you would still have to ask the question, where does that much larger universe originate from that contains the black hole, that contains the wormhole? If we accept the hypothesis that only God can create a universe and all universes, including the theoretical model espoused in this article (if you believe in the concept of a multiverse) have a beginning, then from personal observation we can conclude that we live in a universe. If we conclude that we live in a universe based on scientific data, then we can also conclude that our universe had a beginning based on scientific data. And if our universe had a beginning, then something caused our universe to begin in the first place. This does not prove the existence of God, only an uncaused cause. God is not the only explanation for the origin of the universe or an uncaused cause but I believe God is the best explanation for its origin, even if it is this particular model.

Starhunter wrote:The Big Bang came from between the left and right ears of an ignorant mortal.

This is one of the most profoundly ignorant things I've ever read.

Georges Lemaitre is one of the most intelligent men in human history and it's an incredible insult to describe such a man as ignorant. His writings are beyond his time, his mathematics are nigh inhuman, his work gave meaning to Einstein's relativity in cosmology, and his work inspired many scientific laws in effect today. You know absolutely nothing of the brilliance of Lemaitre and you, I'm sure, are in no position to deem such a brilliant man "ignorant." It's disgusting, it's truly disgusting. Calling Lemaitre ignorant is about as sensical as calling Christ unwise.

Somebody asked me why I'm a deist, this is part why. Such blind, unfounded, ignorance present in theism.


Please explain using your superior understanding of mathematics and astrophysics how Lemaitre is "unknowledgeable or uneducated" (The definition of ignorant)

There is no proof for the existence of non-existence, so existence has always existed.

I'd just be cruel to make arguments following the same logic as this to prove a point.

To answer the question Where did our Big Bang come from? I believe it came from God.

First there was light.

BB was light. God is light.

He said 'let there be light' and there was.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

Starhunter wrote:The Big Bang came from between the left and right ears of an ignorant mortal.

This is one of the most profoundly ignorant things I've ever read.

Georges Lemaitre is one of the most intelligent men in human history and it's an incredible insult to describe such a man as ignorant. His writings are beyond his time, his mathematics are nigh inhuman, his work gave meaning to Einstein's relativity in cosmology, and his work inspired many scientific laws in effect today. You know absolutely nothing of the brilliance of Lemaitre and you, I'm sure, are in no position to deem such a brilliant man "ignorant." It's disgusting, it's truly disgusting. Calling Lemaitre ignorant is about as sensical as calling Christ unwise.

Somebody asked me why I'm a deist, this is part why. Such blind, unfounded, ignorance present in theism.


Please explain using your superior understanding of mathematics and astrophysics how Lemaitre is "unknowledgeable or uneducated" (The definition of ignorant)

You do realise Georges Lemaitre was also a Catholic priest?
That would safely make him theistic I believe.
So while you're defending him, the irony is that you're also in a round about way calling Lemaitre blind and ignorant like Starhunter.

But otherwise, yes, I'd agree with you over Starhunter re: Big Bang cosmology.
Indeed most here would support Big Bang for the simple fact it supports the words: "In the beginning..."

God said let there be light, and there was light.

Now where have I heard that?

Wait! This huge explosion of light and energy. A big bang.

Kurieuo wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

Starhunter wrote:The Big Bang came from between the left and right ears of an ignorant mortal.

This is one of the most profoundly ignorant things I've ever read.

Georges Lemaitre is one of the most intelligent men in human history and it's an incredible insult to describe such a man as ignorant. His writings are beyond his time, his mathematics are nigh inhuman, his work gave meaning to Einstein's relativity in cosmology, and his work inspired many scientific laws in effect today. You know absolutely nothing of the brilliance of Lemaitre and you, I'm sure, are in no position to deem such a brilliant man "ignorant." It's disgusting, it's truly disgusting. Calling Lemaitre ignorant is about as sensical as calling Christ unwise.

Somebody asked me why I'm a deist, this is part why. Such blind, unfounded, ignorance present in theism.


Please explain using your superior understanding of mathematics and astrophysics how Lemaitre is "unknowledgeable or uneducated" (The definition of ignorant)

You do realise Georges Lemaitre was also a Catholic priest?
That would safely make him theistic I believe.
So while you're defending him, the irony is that you're also in a round about way calling Lemaitre blind and ignorant like Starhunter.

But otherwise, yes, I'd agree with you over Starhunter re: Big Bang cosmology.
Indeed most here would support Big Bang for the simple fact it supports the words: "In the beginning..."

I'm more than aware he was catholic priest, he's one of my childhood idol's and why i'm involved in physics. By "present" I certainly don't mean "encompasses all."