Fine Tuning of the Universe

[BVS]

OK, I'll rephrase that. I believe in God more than man's view of God's creation.

So you don't believe in Genesis?

 

[A_Wanderer]

And why isn't the Bible, a text riddled with factual innacuracies, not man's views and descriptions?

 

[melon]

OK, I'll rephrase that. I believe in God more than man's view of God's creation.

Indeed. That's why I trust the evidence of science over the stubborn traditions of His followers.

Melon

 

[shart1780]

So you don't believe in Genesis?

Genesis was written by God through man. Man was his secretary, so to speak.

 

[angelordevil]

OK, I'll rephrase that. I believe in God more than man's view of God's creation.

I won't discount that God may have caused some sort of Big bang, but I believe in a 7 day creation.

So, what are you? Agnostic, or a believer? You're contradicting yourself greatly in this thread.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Genesis was written by God through man. Man was his secretary, so to speak.

Evidence for this? I can claim that this post is written on behalf of Xenu alien overlord and his ET will acting through me and it's just as valid.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I won't discount that God may have caused some sort of Big bang, but I believe in a 7 day creation.

See theres a little bit of a problem since all the heavy elements in your system were created in supernova blasts and following the big bang there was only hydrogen and a little bit of helium, there had to have been at least one generation of stars before the Earth could possibly form, the universe simply lacked the elements required to make a planet, or for that matter you. First generation stars means at least a few hundred million years, the fact we can see back in time more than that when we look at the stars would support this.

 

[VintagePunk]

Evidence for this? I can claim that this post is written on behalf of Xenu alien overlord and his ET will acting through me and it's just as valid.

 

[BVS]

Genesis was written by God through man. Man was his secretary, so to speak.

So let's assume this to be true. He wrote it in a time and for men who were very limited in knowledge and science and had to explain in a way that they could comprehend. We don't have to play ignorant due to the time and age that these scripts were written.

 

[AEON]

It's quite odd, considering that science is a creation of God and probably the most direct evidence of His nature.

Melon

Wow Melon! For the first time I think we are in absolute 100 % agreement!

 

[A_Wanderer]

A completely atheistic point of view of the universe and it's workings is still closer to what we see than the supposition of God and that naturalism is it's workings.

 

[melon]

Wow Melon! For the first time I think we are in absolute 100 % agreement!

Well, except that we seem to define "science" on different terms.

Melon

 

[AEON]

It's really interesting to note that many scientists actually frowned on the Big Bang theory for years. Why? Because such a theory hinted at creation, with all its religious connotations.

This is very true. Now, backed into a corner, the same scientest say "well - obviously there must be an infinite number of universes to explain away the absurd odds against the perfect balance of this one."

It's Amazing how quickly some scientist will abandon science once they reveal evidence that there is a God.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Where? 30 years ago we understood less about the universe than we do today, when the Big Bang theory first originated it didn't need rapid inflation to explain uniform background radiation, dark matter to explain missing mass or the possibility that the universal "constants" have been changing, the additions to the standard model are what lead to doubts, the solution is not to leap on the "God did it" bandwagon but to furthur unravel and investigate towards the next paradigm shift.

 

[melon]

Quantum theory supports the idea of the multiverse. When I state that I believe that science explains the magnanimity of God, I believe it in all of science. "Evolutionary creationists" would still state that the multiverse was created by God, if the science overwhelmingly supported the existence of a multiverse. I also think that "string theory" is infinitely more fitting for a deity than the oversimplicity of Genesis.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

But string "theory" at the moment is just mathematical abstractions, it cannot be proven or disproven in the real world (that is to say we can't measure 1 dimensional lines or loops of energy, yet) and the manner that string theorists talk about their innovations can be a lot of esoteric wank. Now it is impressive that they can formulate the equations to explain the behaviour of particles at a subatomic level and reconcile what we see at all scales, but until it can be proven experimentally it is a curio, the next revolution in physics may not come from where everybody is looking.

If I was looking for a spokesperson for science to differentiate it from faith I wouldn't put a theoretical physicist at the fore

 

[BVS]

It's Amazing how quickly some scientist will abandon science once they reveal evidence that there is a God.

 

[AEON]

Evidence for this? I can claim that this post is written on behalf of Xenu alien overlord and his ET will acting through me and it's just as valid.

Wanderer, even if the evidence were right in front of you I don't think you would chose to accept it.

All of the evidence points to the Big Bang as the precise moment our finite physical universe came into existence, the theory of relativity proves this beyond reasonable doubt, but you don't seem willing to accept it.

I have a feeling if God came down and spoke to you, you would wonder what light and sound trick bounced off the dust in the room.

But I could be wrong. Perhaps you are like me, a Doubting Thomas. Maybe even someday you will become a great apologist for the Christian Faith.

I'll tell you what - I'll read any science book (written for the mass media, not a text book - I don't have THAT kind of time) you suggest - if you read the Gospel of John. Even if you have already read it - please read it again. Up to the challenge? (this is not a challenge to see who can convince who - but a challenge to see if we are willing to learn about each other's viewpoints enough to actually read their source material)

 

[shart1780]

I was reading the Bible yesterday and I read this which instantly reminded me of this thread:

Hebrews 11: 1-3

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Wanderer, even if the evidence were right in front of you I don't think you would chose to accept it.

If this wonderfully accurate evidence exists then present it and I would look like a contemptable fool for willfully ignoring it, but that simply has not been done.

Hail Xenu.

As a matter of record I do distinguish between theistic evolution and creationism / ID and you clearly are not a nutbar, but for the sake of argument I am more than willing to take the hardest line on the absence of the divine in the universe.

 

[AEON]

If this wonderfully accurate evidence exists then present it and I would look like a contemptable fool for willfully ignoring it, but that simply has not been done.

Well, I think the quotes from the scientist at the beginning of this thread show that many of them think there is evidence to support some sort of God. There will never be 100 percent proof of his existence because He is transcendental be nature, all we can see is His cosmic fingerprints.

As a matter of record I do distinguish between theistic evolution and creationism / ID and you clearly are not a nutbar, but for the sake of argument I am more than willing to take the hardest line on the absence of the divine in the universe.

I generally fall in line with theistic evolutionists – but even that is still evoking a designer, a divine causal agent.

Of course, I do understand and respect the atheist position. I was once an atheist myself.

 

[shart1780]

There really is no point at all trying to prove to anyone that God exists through concrete evidence. Even if it could be done (which it can't), it wouldn't turn anyone to Christ, which is ultimately what matters.

 

[AEON]

There really is no point at all trying to prove to anyone that God exists through concrete evidence. Even if it could be done (which it can't), it wouldn't turn anyone to Christ, which is ultimately what matters.

I sort of disagree. It was the evidence of the Big Bang in conjunction with majoring in philosophy in college for 3 years that opened my mind to receiving Christ.

Yes, ultimately I had to take a leap of faith. But for me, it felt more like a baby step because it made so much sense to me.

 

[trevster2k]

AEON, you should post your conversion story in maycockseans thread. If I read what you stated correctly, you shifted in the opposite direction as myself.

 

[AEON]

I didn't see that thread - slipping down the charts...

Thanks! I'll post my story there when I get alittle time.

 

[shart1780]

I sort of disagree. It was the evidence of the Big Bang in conjunction with majoring in philosophy in college for 3 years that opened my mind to receiving Christ.

Yes, ultimately I had to take a leap of faith. But for me, it felt more like a baby step because it made so much sense to me.

Cool. Never heard of a story like that.