INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[metis]

According to a poll cited by Leonard Susskind, who's a research cosmologist, 92% of all cosmologists are either atheists or agnostics, although overwhelmingly the latter. Hawking's hypothesis makes sense if one understands the basis of quantum theory and how it can play out in regards to the BB. More and more cosmologists have theorized that we are more likely a part of a multiverse than just a universe.

If most cosmologists sharply question a theistic cause, then what's the most likely hypothesis they lean toawrds? According to Susskind it is sub-atomic particles going back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am.

However, I have no clue whether they're correct.

 

[1robin]

According to a poll cited by Leonard Susskind, who's a research cosmologist, 92% of all cosmologists are either atheists or agnostics, although overwhelmingly the latter. Hawking's hypothesis makes sense if one understands the basis of quantum theory and how it can play out in regards to the BB. More and more cosmologists have theorized that we are more likely a part of a multiverse than just a universe.

If most cosmologists sharply question a theistic cause, then what's the most likely hypothesis they lean toawrds? According to Susskind it is sub-atomic particles going back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am.

However, I have no clue whether they're correct.

Academics in general have attracted a largely atheistic population in modern times but the history of science shows a massive proportion of it's brightest to have been theists. All the atheist scientists hogging every camera they can find stand on theists shoulders as the very fields themselves were began by theists more often than not. I do not think the faith of the scientific community at any arbitrary time is a good argument against or for God. As a footnote I think four things have contributed to the modern atheistic proportions in science but they are just theories.

1. Universities for whatever reasons in general have recently slanted towards a PC, liberal, and atheistic direction in modern times.
2. Universities using peer review and cliques have been slightly but openly hostile to anyone who makes arguments consistent with God. I have many quotes somewhere of atheistic scientists claiming to have decided scientific issues based on theological preference.
3. The world's population its self according to Biblical doctrine is in its final decline and in most places the rebellious atheistic view point is gaining traction and will do so until God has had enough and ends this mess.
4. I think Christians in general are more content or satisfied with their knowledge of the universe. We do not have the perpetual need to answer more and more of life's less important questions because we believe we have answers to its most important ones.

One of sciences most effectual motivations were the men of faiths assumption that the universe should have a rationality to it and set out to look for it.

As far as Hawking goes I would be hard put to call his scientific capacity less than competent but when his claims are within my capacity to evaluate I find them absurd and ridiculous. This statement that I posted being a primary example: the fact there is such a thing as gravity that the universe can and did create its self from nothing. That is just stupid. Whatever credibility he has within science is non-existent in philosophy or theology. I do not grant that most cosmologists confirm the multiverse but even if they did they do so in ignorance, as no meaningful evidence for it exists and probably never will. It is science fiction not science, and requires more faith given less evidence than the Bible ever has required. The most widely accepted cosmological model posits a single finite universe and that is consistent with all the reliable evidence that exists.

 

[metis]

Academics in general have attracted a largely atheistic population in modern times but the history of science shows a massive proportion of it's brightest to have been theists...

Generally speaking, most of us in science have relatively similar backgrounds that those outside of science, including your's truly, so the above is simply not true. Also, Susskind makes much the same point as I just did, namely that most cosmologists actually had a theistic background.

As far as Hawking goes I would be hard put to call his scientific capacity less than competent but when his claims are within my capacity to evaluate I find them absurd and ridiculous.

So, you think that you actually know more about quantum mechanics and cosmology than Hawking? You've got to be kidding. Unbelievable.

Hawking certainly doesn't walk on water and, as a matter of fact, he and Susskind have sparred on more than one occasion, especially over the issue of "Hawking radiation".

Obviously, you really do not understand much about quantum mechanics and cosmology even though you seem to think you do. Therefore you actually might try being a bit more modest in this area.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, we can hypotheticalize all we want. Intelligent Design is my hypothesis. You have yours, and I have mines.

Evolution is not my hypothesis. It is the consensus of the scientific data. It is the best and only scientific explanation for the diversity of life on the planet and it is supported by mountains of evidence from every single field of science in existence. It has never been falsified.

You can hypothesize all you like, as long as you recognize that you’re not doing science.

Sorry, to much scientific confirmation that says the universe is finite.

So you don’t accept scientific confirmation for the theory of evolution but you accept it for a science that’s still in its developmental stages? Why is that? What scientific confirmation are you referring to?

I understand the fact that you must hold to that false belief and deny contemporary cosmology, but if you are honest and is willing to go wherever current science leads us, then you should be more open to accept the facts.

That’s really rich, coming from you.

First off, you are calling upon science to figure it out, when it is the same science that has figured out the fact that the universe is finite, which you reject.

I said I don’t know. We don’t yet have enough information to make a solid determination either way.

Second, you are assuming that we shouldn’t believe it unless it can be scientifically proven, and that which is a self refuting position. What if science can’t figure it out? Then it isn’t true? Fallacious.

Oh okay. So I guess I should believe in unicorns and fairies until someone proves they don’t exist.

Sorry, I don’t believe in things until I have good reason to do so.

If the universe is infinite, time is infinite. But if the past is eternal, in order to arrive to the present day (moment, time, year, month, minute, hour, etc), time would have to traverse (figuratively) an infinite number of previous moments. How could we ever reach the present day, if in order to reach the present day we had to traverse an infinite amount of days prior?

This is all assuming time is linear, of course. Which we don’t actually know. Einstein kind of turned that idea on its head.

But I don’t know how inserting your god into the equation makes this any less of a problem.

The universe is using all of its useful energy. The energy is winding down. If the universe was infinite, it would have used up its energy a long time ago. The fact that it hasn’t run out yet means that it hasn’t been running forever.

If you start the universe off with a big bang, you won’t get order, you will get chaos. It is practically impossible to get order from a chaotic event, and when I say order, I mean SPECIFIED order. In order to be life permitting, our universe had to meet a certain criteria, each criteria would be improbable given the fact that there was no intelligent mind (on your view) to engineer the process.

For example, If me and you are shooting a game of pool, and I challenged you to put all the balls in the rack in a random order, and once the rack is removed I want you to “break”, and not only do I want to see all the balls roll into the pockets, but I want each ball to roll in to the pockets in numerical order, and you only have ONE try. Do you know how difficult that would be? It is difficult enough to get ANY balls in the pockets off one shot…and even more difficult to get all balls in the pockets off one shot…and even MORE difficult to get all the balls in one shot in NUMERICAL order. So improbability + Improbability + Improbability.

All three of these are problems that the naturalists can’t get over. But I would love to see you try.

This address all of these claims quite succinctly:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html


Continued ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Once again, we have scientific confirmation that it did…for reasons I mentioned above among other empirical reasons. You claim to be all about science, but yet you are adamantly denying contemporary science. I think this is because you are aware of its implications. Otherwise, why deny it? It is science, after all.

I’m saying we don’t know enough to make such a determination yet. Abiogenesis is still in its early stages. It’s truly bizarre that you accept what you do about abiogenesis but reject the bulk of evolution.

So you are asking what caused the uncaused cause? Hmmm.

Uh yeah. You don’t just get to claim something is an “uncaused cause” because you like it that way and leave it at that. Don’t you see how contradictory your claims are? The universe had to have a beginning because it can’t exist infinitely but then you posit some “uncaused cause” that magically can exist infinitely? Come on now.

Like I said, it creates more questions than it answers and so it’s basically useless, in my opinion.

Second, God, should he exist, is a metaphysical necessity, meaning that it is impossible for him to NOT exist. So it is nonsensical to ask where did God come from.

Please demonstrate this.

In a supernatural realm.

That we have no evidence for.

Demonstrate this please.

Like what?

Anything.

For eternity.

Demonstrate this please.

As far as what?

It is measurable in any way? And if not, how do you even know it’s there? Does it act in the natural world?

More questions than it answers? You are making it seem as if science answers all the questions.

The scientific method is by far, the most consistently reliable method for discerning fact from fiction that human beings have ever discovered. It has given us all the knowledge we currently hold about our universe and our world.

So yeah, I’ll take that over “god of the gaps” any day.

For every question you have for my “invisible deity”, I can ask you the same amount regarding your “voodoo” science.

For the hundredth time, there’s nothing voodoo about it. Please educate yourself!

The argument for the Resurrection of Jesus is an argument for the Resurrection of Jesus. That is how.

What on earth does that have to do with anything we’re talking about?

I am appealing to what I feel is the best explanations. In my opinion, science is an insufficient way to talk about absolute origins. So therefore, I appeal to the supernatural, which IS an efficient explanation regarding absolute orgins.

Good luck with that.

 

[1robin]

Generally speaking, most of us in science have relatively similar backgrounds that those outside of science, including your's truly, so the above is simply not true. Also, Susskind makes much the same point as I just did, namely that most cosmologists actually had a theistic background.

That was only a footnoted theory and not part of a debate but I have a mathematics degree and my entire family are exceptional engineers or academics of one type or another and even if my conclusion was inaccurate my premise was not. Academics in general have taken on a liberal slant to varying degrees. I do not know which part of my claim your are stating as untrue but it is a fact that the sciences (especially) have attracted many more atheists than theists in relation to population in recent times than in the past. Your contention above is too vague to be sure about what it is claiming. What part of my "theory" is it you are saying was wrong?

So, you think that you actually know more about quantum mechanics and cosmology than Hawking? You've got to be kidding. Unbelievable.

Oh come on man. I said (specifically to stop this type of response), that I have only a few areas where I can competently evaluate what Hawking claims. I said outside of those few areas I can't condemn a man as brilliant as he is claimed to be. The example I gave of his erroneous logic was a claim that is impossible to derive from cosmology or science of any kind and is derived from either metaphysics or philosophy and is easily seen to be self contradictory by anyone familiar with logical law and philosophical truth. It had nothing to do with any claim about his competence in cosmology or quantum mechanics and I gave him credibility in both of those fields so I do not know where you got anything you said above. The claim I supplied by him, is logically incoherent and can't possibly be true and it does not require an expert in any field to see it is wrong.

Hawking certainly doesn't walk on water and, as a matter of fact, he and Susskind have sparred on more than one occasion, especially over the issue of "Hawking radiation".

I went to school for physics, engineering, and mathematics but have since then found them tedious and far less consequential than theology and philosophy. I only make comments about things Hawking has said that have relevance to God. His book "the Grande design" despite whatever scientific truths it may contain is a philosophical train wreck and even if it's science is correct what is derived from that science is flawed on a basis so regular that it leads to distrust from me even concerning those areas where I am incapable of evaluating them. My only interest in him is in what impact his claims have concerning theology and their merit.

Obviously, you really do not understand much about quantum mechanics and cosmology even though you seem to think you do. Therefore you actually might try being a bit more modest in this area.

There is nothing I have said that was immodest. I gave him credibility in the vast majority of the areas in which he operates without certain knowledge that he deserves that consideration. I deny him credibility where he has demonstrated to me and many respected scholars from the actual fields he is intruding on when he makes comments about theological propositions. There is nothing unjust, arrogant, nor unsupportable about any of that. he operates within philosophy in most of his arguments concerning God and he has no greater capacity within that realm than the guy who cleans my gutters. If you wish to see exceptional scholars who actually have credentials within the actual field of philosophy and even within pure mathematics, ethics, physics, and textual scholarship tear Hawking's comments concerning God apart I will give you a link. I have never made any comments about his competence in science so you claims of arrogance are just not applicable. The statement I gave from his book is proof he is not omniscient nor even competent in many areas where he contends with God and there are countless more examples just as irrational. Please tell me how that statement was correct or deserving of more credibility than I have given him or concede that it is an example of his ignorance outside his fields of study.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Regardless of your view on time, the infinity problem is a tough one. Guess what, before the universe existed, there was NO time at all. To go from atemporal to temporal is something that naturalism hasn’t been capable of explaining.

Positing an “uncaused cause” that just happens to be the god you believe in, doesn’t get us any closer to the truth either. You can’t say “this thing MUST have a cause” while at the same time positing something that doesn’t have to have a cause. It’s just a trick to get around the problem that doesn’t actually get around the problem. Nevermind you still have all your work ahead of you in providing evidence that the specific god you believe in is behind it all.

Plus, you’d also have to explain why your god created the universe 14 billion years ago, then sat around for another 9 or so billion years before creating earth then sitting around for another billion years before creating any life on it, then a couple more billions years before creating the humans that he supposedly created the universe for in the first place. How does that make sense?

As I keep saying, it DOESN’T matter. All we need to know is how improbable it is for THIS universe. The space shuttle is more complex than a Honda Civic, but I don’t need to know exactly how much more complex a space shuttle is compared to a Honda Civic to explain the complexity of a Honda Civic.

Then I’m sorry, but you just don’t understand how probabilities work.

I don’t, but until I have evidence that there is there is no need to assume that there is, now is there?

You’ve been claiming that you do throughout this entire discussion.

By specified complexity.

No.

Thermodynamics. Things were originally created good, but over time, things go bad. Leave food sitting out for days and what do you get? The bible says that with sin came all kinds of bad things.

Please explain and demonstrate this assertion.

Are you trying to say that there were no miscarriages or birth defects thousands of years ago? How on earth can you make such an assertion?

Huh?

How do you calculate a probability when you don’t know the numbers that are involved??

Maybe it could. I can be open to everything you are saying, but that still wont change the fact that for this particular universe, and this particular “life”, astronomical odds had to have been met. You can postulate anything you want, but it wont matter.

No, I know a spacecraft is designed because of its complexity.

That means absolutely nothing. As explained.

Because I refuse to read about a biologists religion, if he won’t read about mines (the Bible).

Are you kidding me? Seriously, you just admitted that you are willfully ignorant.


I’m pretty sure biologists are already aware of your religion. But it has nothing to do with the science they’re doing. The science, I might add, that you use on a regular basis without giving any credit whatsoever to the scientists who discovered all these great things you take for granted.

Biology is not a religion in any sense of the word.

Well, once science tells you how the universe formed, it wont stop there. There will still be more questions to be asked. Second, you will still have the other problems that was mentioned above, so hey.

And when they do, you’ll still be inserting your god into the gaps in knowledge while scientists go out into the field and do useful things like finding the answers for the rest of us.

No I don’t see what you mean. You want to know why? Because according to my religious beliefs, God said “they will bring forth after there kind” (See Gen 1). Coincidently, that is all I see, is animals producing there own kind. I see dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, fish producing fish, snakes producing snakes, turtles producing turtles. No exceptions. I've never seen any exceptions and neither did you, or anyone else for that matter. No man in history has ever seen otherwise. So my religious just happens to fit my observation. The same thing with cosmology, naturalists always maintained that the universe is eternal. Now we have evidence that the universe began to exist, just like Gen 1:1 stated thousands of years before Einstein, before Hubble, and before Hawking. So no, I don’t see what you mean.

Of course you don’t, you just admitted that you’re willfully ignorant. And then you went on to demonstrate it again. You can’t say whether or not, over time something has evolved into something else, because you already admitted you STOPPED READING when you got to speciation in your textbook. So your opinion on the matter, unfortunately, is basically worthless. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and admit it.

Go ahead and accept whatever you want about the Bible. But you’re not doing anything even remotely close to science and your beliefs fly in the face of all known science. If you’re happy with that, so be it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Bogus. First off, you are talking about oscillating models which have been long rejected by science do to empirical and observational problems. There is just no reason for you to even bring these models up...so either you are out of date when it comes to cosmology, or you assumed I would'nt know. Whatever the case is, you are wrong. The BGV theorem (Borde/Guth/Vilenkin) applies to these oscillating models, which proves that even these models would have to have had a beginning.

"The pertinent ingredient which one has to remember is that while this material is decaying, it is also exponentially expanding. And in almost all versions of the theory, this exponential expansion is much faster than the exponential decay process. So even while this peculiar inflation-driving material is decaying, the total volume of it is in fact, increasing with time rather than decreasing. So once started, it never ends. Pieces of the inflated region decay and become pocket universes and an infinite number of these are produced, on and on forever in an eternal process."
-Alan Guth

 

[1robin]

"The pertinent ingredient which one has to remember is that while this material is decaying, it is also exponentially expanding. And in almost all versions of the theory, this exponential expansion is much faster than the exponential decay process. So even while this peculiar inflation-driving material is decaying, the total volume of it is in fact, increasing with time rather than decreasing. So once started, it never ends. Pieces of the inflated region decay and become pocket universes and an infinite number of these are produced, on and on forever in an eternal process."
-Alan Guth

I have not been keeping up with all aspects under discussion here but I think you might have misunderstood something here or at least there is that potential. To say something may or will go on forever is not to say it did not have a beginning. I would have to agree that unless God intervenes that the universe will keep on expanding until there is no recognizable structures or detectable energy concentrations anywhere and that would go on forever but that does not have anything to do with a finiteness of the universe. At any time we took a snap shot of even an eternally expending universe it would still be finite with an absolute beginning. That is the only issue that theists insist the evidence makes clear. The theory that Guth contributed to is called Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. That title is consistent with what they said any universe on average expanding must have a finite past. It's theoretical future is not in question or relevant to cause and effect arguments made by both men of faith and without for thousands of years and which is no less logical today. It's past is perfectly consistent with Biblical claims and everything that can reliably be derived from either of them.

 

[metis]

That was only a footnoted theory and not part of a debate but I have a mathematics degree and my entire family are exceptional engineers or academics of one type or another and even if my conclusion was inaccurate my premise was not. Academics in general have taken on a liberal slant to varying degrees. I do not know which part of my claim your are stating as untrue but it is a fact that the sciences (especially) have attracted many more atheists than theists in relation to population in recent times than in the past. Your contention above is too vague to be sure about what it is claiming. What part of my "theory" is it you are saying was wrong?



Oh come on man. I said (specifically to stop this type of response), that I have only a few areas where I can competently evaluate what Hawking claims. I said outside of those few areas I can't condemn a man as brilliant as he is claimed to be. The example I gave of his erroneous logic was a claim that is impossible to derive from cosmology or science of any kind and is derived from either metaphysics or philosophy and is easily seen to be self contradictory by anyone familiar with logical law and philosophical truth. It had nothing to do with any claim about his competence in cosmology or quantum mechanics and I gave him credibility in both of those fields so I do not know where you got anything you said above. The claim I supplied by him, is logically incoherent and can't possibly be true and it does not require an expert in any field to see it is wrong.


I went to school for physics, engineering, and mathematics but have since then found them tedious and far less consequential than theology and philosophy. I only make comments about things Hawking has said that have relevance to God. His book "the Grande design" despite whatever scientific truths it may contain is a philosophical train wreck and even if it's science is correct what is derived from that science is flawed on a basis so regular that it leads to distrust from me even concerning those areas where I am incapable of evaluating them. My only interest in him is in what impact his claims have concerning theology and their merit.


There is nothing I have said that was immodest. I gave him credibility in the vast majority of the areas in which he operates without certain knowledge that he deserves that consideration. I deny him credibility where he has demonstrated to me and many respected scholars from the actual fields he is intruding on when he makes comments about theological propositions. There is nothing unjust, arrogant, nor unsupportable about any of that. he operates within philosophy in most of his arguments concerning God and he has no greater capacity within that realm than the guy who cleans my gutters. If you wish to see exceptional scholars who actually have credentials within the actual field of philosophy and even within pure mathematics, ethics, physics, and textual scholarship tear Hawking's comments concerning God apart I will give you a link. I have never made any comments about his competence in science so you claims of arrogance are just not applicable. The statement I gave from his book is proof he is not omniscient nor even competent in many areas where he contends with God and there are countless more examples just as irrational. Please tell me how that statement was correct or deserving of more credibility than I have given him or concede that it is an example of his ignorance outside his fields of study.

Lots of words, with most of them just a snow-job. I read what you posted previously, and I don't have trouble with reading comprehension, and the above post is merely a cop-out. You have stereotyped scientists, and then demeaned the stereotypes.

Frankly, I think I've had enough of your antics.

 

[1robin]

Lots of words, with most of them just a snow-job. I read what you posted previously, and I don't have trouble with reading comprehension, and the above post is merely a cop-out. You have stereotyped scientists, and then demeaned the stereotypes.

Frankly, I think I've had enough of your antics.

Well I am now very familiar with your opinion. I can't say I have any evidence (or even an attempt to provide) of them being true nor any reason to expect to be provided with any so whatever you decide is fine with me as this is a good one to leave on. I will point out that between the two of us only I actually presented a single claim Hawking ever made. I also note that even when requested you did not even attempt to show my contentions concerning it were invalid. So as it stands I believe my claim (which was derived from a paper by an Oxford math professor by the name of Lennox) is in tact. Selah,

 

[metis]

For those who are more willing to have a serious discussion, I mentioned in a previous post that most cosmologists tend to lean in the direction of thinking that sub-atomic particles could possibly go back into infinity, and that the these could be the basis for our universe/multiverse. This ties into String Theory, M-Theory, Brane-Theory, and quantum mechanics for just several examples that have gained some in popularity but still are only hypotheses, although they have at least mathematical evidence for them (don't ask me how because I'm far from being a mathematician).

Now, I am not claiming that this hypothesis is correct as I have no way of knowing this, and we may never know what actually happened at the BB with any certainty, but how does this correlate or not with your drift?

 

[Thief]

Maybe the dead take care of the dead....

Yeah....and the Carpenter said..."Let the dead bury the dead"

btw...numbers are failing to show us the nature of the universe.
It's not likely you will find any equation that will 'prove' ...God.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The most widely accepted model in modern cosmology posits an actual beginning.

Um, no, I don't think so- certainly not the standard BBT, which does NOT include any "actual beginning".

 

[Enai de a lukal]

First off, Hawking's model does have a beginning, just not at a beginning point.

No, it has no absolute beginning. It is "infinitely finite", or "boundless".

Dr. Craig has already spoke out against this model in his public lectures and in his written work.

I'm sure he has. Unfortunately, nothing he has to say on the matter carries much weight, as he is speaking as a total layman in this respect. Craig is not a physicist. (and this is likely irrelevant anyways- if his response is anything like his other arguments, its likely to be heavy on the non-sequiturs)

Bogus. First off, you are talking about oscillating models which have been long rejected by science do to empirical and observational problems.

No.

There is just no reason for you to even bring these models up

Of course there is, because you have misrepresented the state of science. There are credible scientific models which either contain no beginning, or contain a beginning but without any occult entities (like gods), thus your claim is mistaken.

...so either you are out of date when it comes to cosmology, or you assumed I would'nt know. Whatever the case is, you are wrong. The BGV theorem (Borde/Guth/Vilenkin) applies to these oscillating models, which proves that even these models would have to have had a beginning.

Talk about foot-in-the-mouth time; Vilenkin's reply to whether his theorem proves that the universe must have had a beginning-

"No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time."

In other words, the BVG (not BGV) theorem doesn't apply to cyclical models which include a contraction prior to the expansion of the Big Bang. But having a beginning doesn't even get you where you want to go anyways (i.e. to the Christian creation myth) since, as we saw, there are models which do include a beginning- but without any supernatural entities playing any causal role (as in the zero-energy hypothesis).

It's sort of funny- Craig mistakenly cites a scientific theorem he doesn't understand, in order to hang on to conclusions based on a theory that has proven to be mistaken (the initial singularity of classical physics), and which has completely fallen out of favor in the actual field it applies to.

Talk about being behind the times- what an ironic accusation.

 

[1robin]

Um, no, I don't think so- certainly not the standard BBT, which does NOT include any "actual beginning".

That is not the latest model. The latest model is the BGV past FINITE universes theory. Summed up it says that any universe on average expanding, is finite in the past.

 

[metis]

Expansion has literally nothing to do with being infinite or finite, and an example of this would be M-Theory. Generally speaking, cosmologists do generally believe there were preconditions to the expansion, and there are various theories to exemplify that. Plus I recommended the book earlier "The Universe Before the Big Bang" by Maurizio Gasperini whereas he walks the reader through various hypotheses.

 

[1robin]

Expansion has literally nothing to do with being infinite or finite, and an example of this would be M-Theory.

That is exactly the opposite from what 3 respected cosmologists with more degrees than you have claimed and it is also very simplistic and consistent with common sense.

…three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

Maybe you should tell them what you said here.

Generally speaking, cosmologists do generally believe there were preconditions to the expansion, and there are various theories to exemplify that. Plus I recommended the book earlier "The Universe Before the Big Bang" by Maurizio Gasperini whereas he walks the reader through various hypotheses.

What you stated here is not part of the most accepted model which I provided and I do not think accurate. Certainly theories exist but they are not based on reliable data. Guessing what preceded the beginning is not science it is science fiction. I have never understood why but people on your side will not let the slightest bit of evidence based faith speak for God's existence but will permit guesses based on far less evidence than God has to claim anything. Even mutually exclusive things like holographic theory and string theory. Hypothesis are guess and I am all for them but until they grow up quite a bit they do not compete with theories as rigorous as the ones I have provided. Neither the big bang model nor the Bord Guth Velankin theorem include anything before the bang. Others have guessed at things that might have been there but they require a beginning and source no les than the Big bang does and they do not rise to any level of reliability to begin with. By all means speculate on but speculations have no place in a decision that must be made within our lifetimes.

 

[metis]

Breaking news: there is no objectively-derived evidence for "God", although I wish there was. Plus, why is it being assumed that there's only one "God".

Again, to repeat, 92% of all cosmologists are either atheists or agnostics, according to a fairly recent poll, so if a theistic cause is so obvious, why is it that these people, who are trained in this area, don't seem to know about it? I have eight books written by cosmologists in my personal library, and not a single one of them says that there's evidence for a theistic causation, although a couple do mention it as a hypothetical possibility.

BTW, I betcha we could probably find more than three scientists who believe the Earth is flat and that sea monsters are found in our oceans.

 

[1robin]

Breaking news: there is no objectively-derived evidence for "God", although I wish there was. Plus, why is it being assumed that there's only one "God".

Again, to repeat, 92% of all cosmologists are either atheists or agnostics, according to a fairly recent poll, so if a theistic cause is so obvious, why is it that these people, who are trained in this area, don't seem to know about it? I have eight books written by cosmologists in my personal library, and not a single one of them says that there's evidence for a theistic causation, although a couple do mention it as a hypothetical possibility.

BTW, I betcha we could probably find more than three scientists who believe the Earth is flat and that sea monsters are found in our oceans.

Your first claim is irrelevant and probably not even technically true.

The second has been refuted by me and its repetition will not make it more right than it was the first time and I have no idea what the last point was supposed to mean. I do not think anyone has derived a theological position based on a scientific hypothesis. The issue is what is most consistent. God would still be the most consistent and explanatory even if every scientist who ever lived was an atheist and that is certainly not the case especially among the greatest of them.

You do not address your points to me. Until you do I will be les willing to discuss them. I am not sure what your intention is here.

The only thing objectively known is that we think. Everything else incorporates some level of faith. At least theists are honest enough to admit it.