Evidence for God from Science

Hi,
http://www.petersaysstuff.com/2011/08/r ... ience-org/ Your take on it.

I suppose that blog article is troubling you and you need its refutation to gain peace.

supersonicthehedgehog wrote:Hi,
http://www.petersaysstuff.com/2011/08/r ... ience-org/ Your take on it.

Virtually no size and infinitely small. Erm, are they not really the same thing?

Sonic?
There will always be people who try and debunk any reasoning for God. I think you see what you want to see a lot of the time. If you don`t believe in God then you will look for and find reasons why He can`t exist.
There are plenty of scientists that believe in God.

Personally, I think even if God doesn`t exist (and I don`t think that for a nanosecond) then I lose nothing by believing in Him but if He does exist and I don`t believe in Him then I lose everything.
I would rather believe in God and be wrong than the other way round.

That site, for a bunch of people who arrogantly spout their own reason, seem to lack for it in their arguments.

I'm don't agree with everything posted on G&S, but for the most part, he shows more reason than that site does, or even people like Dawkins and the New Atheists.

And the G&S explanation for the Trinity is brilliant.

"If there is a multiverse, which there is evidence for as shown above"

This is where I stop reading. There is no evidence for the multiverse, nor is it a very popular hypothesis/idea. (He's using the CMB data that created all that hysteria a while back to support his claims FYI)
He then goes on to base about 5 more points on "if the multiverse exists." This is such a ridiculous tactic, he's "disproving" godandscience.org using a untestable, unpopular hypothesis. So much for science eh?
He also uses a 17 year old cherry picked statistic to try to convince everybody "80% of scientist are atheist, why? Because they're smart."

The multiverse wouldn't exactly shake my semi-deistic worldview either, it's just an absurdity to have an entire website making arguments, very definitive ones at that, off a currently untestable hypothesis. I personally, although my opinion carries little weight, think it's a flawed hypothesis that's being grossly and incredibly misused by those who refuse to accept finitude.
The multiverse is kind of like dark matter. Somebody reads an article on Salon about it and now they're a physicist who has every credential to make grandstanding, absurd and inaccurate claims about it. Apparently Salon replaces college physics education.
From the garbage I've read written by peter, he seems to be parroting fringe scientist, misrepresenting scientific hypothesis, twisting words from articles on his citations, and using complete junk citations ---"Common Sense Atheism" appears multiple times in his citations FYI--.

I'm not sure what you're looking for though sonic... You will never straighten your faith if you're constantly trying to disprove God to yourself. Do you have a desire to not believe, is that what's driving this? You can look at objective scientific evidence without having a mouthpiece skewing it either way, but looking at articles written by extremely skewed mouthpieces will never produce very viable information. If all I listened to for my history education was that crazy haired ancient aliens guy, I'd probably think ancient aliens built the pyramids.

To add:
He does have a viable citation in phys.org in which possible evidence for the multiverse is given. After the claim is made, they make clear they haven't examined the data yet .

"If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist."
http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists ... s.html#jCp

This story went all over the place when it came out, "new universes found" the media cried! Alas the CMB data -in referring to infinite amount of universes form of "multiverse"- does not directly indicate a multiverse (sounds redundant, but they're different forms of the multiverse hypothesis).
Also: Dark flow does not, again, indicate multiverse; just another error by our arm chair physicist, Peter.

-(“Measuring the cosmological bulk flow using the peculiar velocities of supernovae” De-Chang Dai, William H. Kinney, Dejan Stojkovic, JCAP 1104 (2011) 015 .)


Sneaky Pete should consider doing actual research before spewing his trash.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:"If there is a multiverse, which there is evidence for as shown above"

This is where I stop reading. There is no evidence for the multiverse, nor is it a very popular hypothesis/idea. (He's using the CMB data that created all that hysteria a while back to support his claims FYI)
He then goes on to base about 5 more points on "if the multiverse exists." This is such a ridiculous tactic, he's "disproving" godandscience.org using a untestable, unpopular hypothesis. So much for science eh?
He also uses a 17 year old cherry picked statistic to try to convince everybody "80% of scientist are atheist, why? Because they're smart."

The multiverse wouldn't exactly shake my semi-deistic worldview either, it's just an absurdity to have an entire website making arguments, very definitive ones at that, off a currently untestable hypothesis. I personally, although my opinion carries little weight, think it's a flawed hypothesis that's being grossly and incredibly misused by those who refuse to accept finitude.
The multiverse is kind of like dark matter. Somebody reads an article on Salon about it and now they're a physicist who has every credential to make grandstanding, absurd and inaccurate claims about it. Apparently Salon replaces college physics education.
From the garbage I've read written by peter, he seems to be parroting fringe scientist, misrepresenting scientific hypothesis, twisting words from articles on his citations, and using complete junk citations ---"Common Sense Atheism" appears multiple times in his citations FYI--.

I'm not sure what you're looking for though sonic... You will never straighten your faith if you're constantly trying to disprove God to yourself. Do you have a desire to not believe, is that what's driving this? You can look at objective scientific evidence without having a mouthpiece skewing it either way, but looking at articles written by extremely skewed mouthpieces will never produce very viable information. If all I listened to for my history education was that crazy haired ancient aliens guy, I'd probably think ancient aliens built the pyramids.

Not only that but look at this happy

""1: String theory is beginning to provide a framework for why the elementary particles have the masses that they do so it is ludicrous to assume that they are fine tuned.""

If this isn't dogmatic speculation then I don't know what is lol.
This guy is basically taking views that favor his philosophy and then presuming that they are facts lol.
Let me guess , he's a militant atheist lol

I notice that this genius has absolutely nothing on near death experiences . Gee I wonder why

Bip:
If this isn't dogmatic speculation then I don't know what is lol.
This guy is basically taking views that favor his philosophy and then presuming that they are facts lol.
Let me guess , he's a militant atheist lol

It's called cherrypicking which universe model STILL doesn't have an explanation for its origins, as even a chain or parallel universes has to have a beginning and a cause. Oh, I get it, it's the: "Kick the Can Down the Cosmic Road" model, likely dreamed up somewhere by grad students during an all-night session of hitting a bong!

Philip wrote:

Bip:
If this isn't dogmatic speculation then I don't know what is lol.
This guy is basically taking views that favor his philosophy and then presuming that they are facts lol.
Let me guess , he's a militant atheist lol

It's called cherrypicking which universe model STILL doesn't have an explanation for its origins, as even a chain or parallel universes has to have a beginning and a cause. Oh, I get it, it's the: "Kick the Can Down the Cosmic Road" model, likely dreamed up somewhere by grad students during an all-night session of hitting a bong!

Philip it's called kick the road into the bottomless pit lol.
Why do I feel that young people like this want to eliminate God so they can eliminate guilt and objective moral values thereby paving the road for whatever pleasures their hearts desire.