Science Proves God

[~candice~]

According to Candice's friend, Dr. Hugh Ross,

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

According to Candice's friend, Dr. Hugh Ross,

I thought you might like that.

I've started wading through that link you sent me on genealogies... after 45 minutes of reading I noticed the scroll bar had traveled about an eigth of an inch... I'll get back to it later.

[esyflw]

No

Science cannot, has not proven God exist. Otherwise it would explain how our Lord can walk on water, raise the dead, appear after He died, Great Flood, feeding a multitude, fashion a universe in a week, Angels, Demons, Souls, Virgin Mary, etc...

We don't need science to prove if God exist. Science is only good for filling plastic bottles full of Mountain Dew. It cant fill Gods love for us.

"This love is of such a kind and such an intensity and such a magnitude that it moved God to give his Son to die for the world" (John 10:17–18).

I agree, stay clear of science.

incorrect

Forgive the sarcasm.

Science is a blessing, a gift from God. From it we can do great many things to help our world. Maybe in time science will explain the function of the Universe, which are your arguments here,...

... but explaining The Word...I say no.

God “hangs the earth on nothing.”...Job 26:7

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Is it really a waste if the space and resources are unlimited?

No, if we assume that we will be able to use all these resources before the end of days, which, allegedily, should occur pretty soon

Kidding aside, the universe is pretty huge. 100 billions stars in our galaxy and 100 billions galaxies in our observable universe, and it might be even much bigger. Just to accommodate us? It does not look very efficient.

The acoustics in this forum are fantastic, check it out:

According to Dr. Hugh Ross, "if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller... (or larger), not even one planet like the earth would be possible".

If you need a certain amount of mass to sustain one single life sustaining planet, then it can't possibly be interpreted as waste if the rest of the necessary mass happens to comprises many planets, since it has to be around in some form anyways, so if the designer likes planets, planets it is. They may simply be a necessary by product of the inital conditions necessary to support life, such as the weak force, gravity, etc. all working together.

(echo)

According to Dr. Hugh Ross, "if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller... (or larger), not even one planet like the earth would be possible".

If you need a certain amount of mass to sustain one single life sustaining planet, then it can't possibly be interpreted as waste if the rest of the necessary mass happens to comprises many planets, since it has to be around in some form anyways, so if the designer likes planets, planets it is. They may simply be a necessary by product of the inital conditions necessary to support life, such as the weak force, gravity, etc. all working together.

(echo)

According to Dr. Hugh Ross, "if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller... (or larger), not even one planet like the earth would be possible".

If you need a certain amount of mass to sustain one single life sustaining planet, then it can't possibly be interpreted as waste if the rest of the necessary mass happens to comprises many planets, since it has to be around in some form anyways, so if the designer likes planets, planets it is. They may simply be a necessary by product of the inital conditions necessary to support life, such as the weak force, gravity, etc. all working together.

(echo)

According to Dr. Hugh Ross, "if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller... (or larger), not even one planet like the earth would be possible" .

If you need a certain amount of mass to sustain one single life sustaining planet, then it can't possibly be interpreted as waste if the rest of the necessary mass happens to comprises many planets, since it has to be around in some form anyways, so if the designer likes planets, planets it is. They may simply be a necessary by product of the inital conditions necessary to support life, such as the weak force, gravity, etc. all working together.

[LuftWaffle]

Kidding aside, the universe is pretty huge. 100 billions stars in our galaxy and 100 billions galaxies in our observable universe, and it might be even much bigger. Just to accommodate us? It does not look very efficient.

So, what you're saying is that you'd believe in God if the universe was smaller?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Yes, I can hear

But if we really insist on authority as a classical tactic of persuasion (although I never heard of Dr. Hugh Ross) then let us hear what Dr. Prof. etc. etc. Steven Hawking who held Newton's chair at Cambridge and is definitely more famous than Dr. Ross, has to say:

" God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

O, so now that Hawking isn't speaking within his field of expertise but is straying to theology, only now you want to listen to him, but when he is speaking within his field and states "'Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning" then you want to ignore him?

Hawking says in his book “The Grand Design” that, given the existence of gravity, “the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

“Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” he writes in the excerpt.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going,” he writes.

Spontaneous creation is not what you've been asserting with your arrow of time stuff, so you're disagreeing with him.

You can when it comes to physics, but we can't when it comes to logic? How does that work?

Or Albert Einstein (also slightly more famous than Dr. Ross: if you do not know him, he is the guy who defined the structure of the universe):

Big hair, right?

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

And what was his fomula for that?

E=mc2

Where E is Einstein

m is misunderstands and

c is cosmology?

Once again, why are you rejecting their actual cosmological models and accepting only their unwarented theological/philosophical assertions?

Isn't an expert only an expert in the field of their expertise?

Would it surpirse you to find out that my neighbour Gail is a vastly superior interior designer compared to Hawking and Einstein put together?

I think this can be heard even without bold fonts, good acoustics and echoes, which, apparently, are needed by Dr. Ross (whomever he is), for obvious reasons

Dr. Ross was speaking within his field of expertise. It isn't his fault that you'd rather listen to Hawkings musings on theology.

What about aliens, viole? Do you listen to Hawking's warnings about them, or is he diving in a little deeper than he's qualified to do on that one?

Now, can we go back and think with our own brains, instead of constantly looking for intellectual help in the form of important sounding citations?

Notice how the citation was simply to substantiate a simple claim, i.e. that if the universe were any smaller or larger there couldn't be planets the size of our own, to which you offered absolutely no challenge whatsoever.

Have such feeble attempts at diversion worked for you in the past?

And more importantly, can we reduce sarcasm?

No dice.

Sarcasm does not bother me at all, but if we were both free to use it, I would have a too strong advantage

I have empirical evidence to the contrary.... re. the post to follow.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Kidding aside, the universe is pretty huge. 100 billions stars in our galaxy and 100 billions galaxies in our observable universe, and it might be even much bigger. Just to accommodate us? It does not look very efficient.

So, what you're saying is that you'd believe in God if the universe was smaller?

If viole came to Mount Rushmore she'd remember a life-sized bust she saw of George Washington and assume that since it's possible to make much smaller images of Washington, therefore if an intelligent creator were involved his grand mug on the face of a mountain would only be possible at a terrible waste of time and resources, so it simply follows that the four Presidential faces must have been carved out by unguided natural forces, maybe some wind and rain.

See, isn't that so much more fun?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Kidding aside, the universe is pretty huge. 100 billions stars in our galaxy and 100 billions galaxies in our observable universe, and it might be even much bigger. Just to accommodate us? It does not look very efficient.

So, what you're saying is that you'd believe in God if the universe was smaller?

Of course not. In a couple of billions years, if the universe keeps expanding at the same rate as today, all (except a few) galaxies will disappear beyond our observable universe. A civilization that starts observing the universe then, will come to the wrong conclusion that the universe is much smaller and very young (the most distant observable galaxy will not be so far away): if they used only this fact as a proof of God, they would be wrong.

However, the fact that the universe is so very huge, is not a definitive argument against the existence of God, but it raises nevertheless some doubts about the fact that we are supposed to be the main target of creation. Something, much smaller, could have been enough for us. Unless, of course, the only possible necessary solution, from God's point of view, for a universe with life is to have such a big amount of extra space and mass, which I doubt.

Of course, the extra stars and their explosions are necessary for manufacturing heavy elements like carbon, but from a biblical point of view, God created life without waiting for supernovas. For all we know, He could have created only the solar system in its present form and that's it.

You're still trying to make this point at the expense of the fact from which you tried and failed to divert attention, namely the universe needs to have as much mass as it does in order to sustain a life-permissive planet the size of our own. Since it is a necessary condition for having a life-sustaining planet like our own, it is nonsense to talk about waste. There is none, and therefore it raises no doubts, utterly putting to rest your assertion, which you press anyways for some reason.

[Don Fanucci]

Kidding aside, the universe is pretty huge. 100 billions stars in our galaxy and 100 billions galaxies in our observable universe, and it might be even much bigger. Just to accommodate us? It does not look very efficient.

So, what you're saying is that you'd believe in God if the universe was smaller?

Of course not. In a couple of billions years, if the universe keeps expanding at the same rate as today, all (except a few) galaxies will disappear beyond our observable universe. A civilization that starts observing the universe then, will come to the wrong conclusion that the universe is much smaller and very young (the most distant observable galaxy will not be so far away): if they used only this fact as a proof of God, they would be wrong.

However, the fact that the universe is so very huge, is not a definitive argument against the existence of God, but it raises nevertheless some doubts about the fact that we are supposed to be the main target of creation. Something, much smaller, could have been enough for us. Unless, of course, the only possible necessary solution, from God's point of view, for a universe with life is to have such a big amount of extra space and mass, which I doubt.

Of course, the extra stars and their explosions are necessary for manufacturing heavy elements like carbon, but from a biblical point of view, God created life without waiting for supernovas. For all we know, He could have created only the solar system in its present form and that's it.

You're still trying to make this point at the expense of the fact from which you tried and failed to divert attention, namely the universe needs to have as much mass as it does in order to sustain a life-permissive planet the size of our own. Since it is a necessary condition for having a life-sustaining planet like our own, it is nonsense to talk about waste. There is none, and therefore it raises no doubts, utterly putting to rest your assertion, which you press anyways for some reason.

You are right. I agree that 100 billions of galaxies are necessary to sustain life on this planet. I did not consider this in my equations, sorry about that.

Use the ignore button viole, it will save you much heartburn and from having to teach third grade over and over.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

And what was his fomula for that?

E=mc2

Where E is Einstein

m is misunderstands and

c is cosmology?

It breaks my heart to see grown men intellectually embarrassing themselves like that, I probably went too far. I formally promise, for your own good and in the interest of peace and intellectual standards of this forum , not to make any challenges to your cosmological arguments anymore. I will always agree with you, I will really do OESD, because I am sorry and worried.

I hope you will accept my sincere apologies for having pulled this too far. I am immensely sorry.

Apart from revealing your religion, I don't even know what this means.

What I do know, is that you tried to divert attention from my point, couldn't demonstrate that any of the sources you pretend support your point actually do, since they all believe that the universe came into being which you deny, and now when you're pressed you make some weak pretense of embarrassment when I follow your joke about Einstein with another joke.

You can follow Don’s lead of being patronizing but then pretending to take the high ground coincidentally only after you’re demonstrated to be incapable of addressing my challenge (namely that no one agrees that the universe did not have a beginning, so you’re on the fringe of blind materialistic faith in trying to deny God).