Evidence for God from Science

Did God create it? I believe this and obviously if Christian you'll believe such.

I am interested in the non-Christian contingent here though, with what they lean towards.

Do you believe in something like what the physicist Krauss tries to teach people, that something really can in fact come from nothing. Or, perhaps you more believe in a multiverse model wherein our universe (singular) in amongst one of many. If so, do you believe in an infinite multiverse ensemble (and why?), or a finite multiverse ensemble?

Of course, you can feel free to plead the fifth if you like.

The term "universe" is a construct of man's imagination. As such, your question has no meaning for me.

Tis all an illusion.

Where did our Universe come from?

Your mom

1) Either the Universe started, or it has been going on indefinitely.

2) Some physicists think that you can have both, by our Universe springing from another uber-universe, or in a big-bang big-crunch cycle, but this only shifts the problem a stage. Either the uber-universe, or the cycle, started, or it has been going on indefinitely.

3) A lot depends on how you define "universe". If it means "all there is" then the uber-universe becomes the Universe, and our universe is a mere unter-universe. However it is usually taken to mean all that we can experience, study and understand, leaving other universes as mathematical constructs.

4) There is nothing philosophically incorrigible about supposing that the universe has been going on indefinitely. It does raise the question of how its laws and continuousness came to be. To a "continuist" that is simply a meaningless question, but I find it an unsatisfactory way of thinking.

5) If the Universe began, it is usually supposed to have begun from nothing. As 'nothing' precludes the existence of time, it is usually thought that the question of what happened 'before' nothing is a meaningless question. However, it might not be meaningless to ask what there was 'outside' nothing, in order for nothing to have the ability to become 'something'.

6) Some scientists think that it is in the nature of 'nothing' that it automatically produces 'something'. The science from which this arises is that a vacuum is not completely empty but consists of any number of virtual particles, being a balanced combination of particles and anti-particles, which cancel each other out. However, this hypothesis falls apart under the consideration that a 'nothing' with 'laws' which operate it isn't really 'nothing' at all - and where do the 'laws' come from?

7) I think most atheist scientists will simply agree that they don't know. However, I think most Christian scientists would also say they don't know as well! "God did it," may be true, and it's easy to say, but how?

Some scientists think that it is in the nature of 'nothing' that it automatically produces 'something'.

Yeah, and some of them say all kinds of theoretical nonsense! Unfathomable complexity design, the clear fine-tuning of all things to unbelievably specific timing and functionalities show an intelligence far beyond our understanding. What appeared, at the moment of the big bang, was not some random chaos - but things instantly appeared, that moments before did not exist, that had great complexity and astounding function and design. Nothing is NOTHING!!! It does not exist! Now SOMETHING is different - and what showed up, instantly, showed an unfathomably intelligent source of immense power. And since the beginning of the universe, what we see is incredible complexity and consistency, all operating with individually and cohesive consistent functionality and fixed parameters. In fact, unless the universe and the controlling laws it reveals were not so consistent, the scientific method would be useless!

The Universe came from the mind of God. God's thoughts became physical reality.

Philip is right. Physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote a book entitled, 'A Universe from Nothing'. Physicists did not like the idea of the word nothing meaning the absence of anything. So what they did was redefine the word nothing to fit their worldview.

As Krauss says, "Because something is physical, nothing must be physical especially if you define it as the absence of something". What???

Krauss might be a good physicist but he is a useless philosopher. Nonsense remains nonsense, even if it is spoken by a world famous scientist.

Mallz wrote:

Where did our Universe come from?

Your mom

Umm, I'm probably going to be embarrassed saying this, but I seriously don't get it?

I'm glad that both Philip and Kurieou agree with me that the argument that 'nothing' became 'something' is specious.

Is anyone who says they KNOW where it came from telling the truth?

Audie wrote:Is anyone who says they KNOW where it came from telling the truth?

Probably not, but then, is anyone who says they KNOW that nobody knows telling the truth either?

Audie wrote:Is anyone who says they KNOW where it came from telling the truth?

Perhaps not in scientific terms but that's just the nature of the beast. In metaphysical terms, however, yes we most certainly do know the truth.

Kurieuo wrote:

Mallz wrote:

Where did our Universe come from?

Your mom

Umm, I'm probably going to be embarrassed saying this, but I seriously don't get it?

Clearly, you think the universe revolves around you, K. Or, your ego is soooo big, that you are the universe.


Or, it's just a simple "your mom" joke.

hughfarey wrote:

Audie wrote:Is anyone who says they KNOW where it came from telling the truth?

Probably not, but then, is anyone who says they KNOW that nobody knows telling the truth either?

"Science doesn't do truth."

-Audie, aka, Min, aka Chinese Cowgirl

Where did our Universe come from?

Are you looking for (metaphysical) proof or (scientific) evidence? I will assume the latter (hence my response to hugh's post below).

hughfarey wrote:1) Either the Universe started, or it has been going on indefinitely.

2) Some physicists think that you can have both, by our Universe springing from another uber-universe, or in a big-bang big-crunch cycle, but this only shifts the problem a stage. Either the uber-universe, or the cycle, started, or it has been going on indefinitely.

3) A lot depends on how you define "universe". If it means "all there is" then the uber-universe becomes the Universe, and our universe is a mere unter-universe. However it is usually taken to mean all that we can experience, study and understand, leaving other universes as mathematical constructs.

4) There is nothing philosophically incorrigible about supposing that the universe has been going on indefinitely. It does raise the question of how its laws and continuousness came to be. To a "continuist" that is simply a meaningless question, but I find it an unsatisfactory way of thinking.

5) If the Universe began, it is usually supposed to have begun from nothing. As 'nothing' precludes the existence of time, it is usually thought that the question of what happened 'before' nothing is a meaningless question. However, it might not be meaningless to ask what there was 'outside' nothing, in order for nothing to have the ability to become 'something'.

6) Some scientists think that it is in the nature of 'nothing' that it automatically produces 'something'. The science from which this arises is that a vacuum is not completely empty but consists of any number of virtual particles, being a balanced combination of particles and anti-particles, which cancel each other out. However, this hypothesis falls apart under the consideration that a 'nothing' with 'laws' which operate it isn't really 'nothing' at all - and where do the 'laws' come from?

7) I think most atheist scientists will simply agree that they don't know. However, I think most Christian scientists would also say they don't know as well! "God did it," may be true, and it's easy to say, but how?

The latest discoveries in astrophysics point to very strong evidence towards a beginning a finite time ago. This is irrespective of the number and nature of these universes, whether it be from a multi-verse, bouncing, oscillating, or whatever. No matter how far back we go, we reach a point that for any universe capable of hosting a set of laws, any kind of laws capable of hosting life, any kind of life, this universe-producing thing must be on average expanding. And if it has an average expansion greater than zero, it must have a beginning. That's the sole criterion, average expansion > 0, that's it.

RickD wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Audie wrote:Is anyone who says they KNOW where it came from telling the truth?

Probably not, but then, is anyone who says they KNOW that nobody knows telling the truth either?

"Science doesn't do truth."

-Audie, aka, Min, aka Chinese Cowgirl

Religion pretends to.