Design arguments and science

[rogue06]

It is not that a lot of cosmologists believe(?). It is most cosmologists conclude that the cosmos is infinite and eternal. Even the conclusion that our universe is boundless concludes there is an infinite matrix beyond our universe. I will try and cite more concerning why cosmologists conclude, not believe this. but than again my references may be technical and deal with math and QM. I doubt that you have made any effort yourself to understand the view of contemporary cosmology, and why they come to this conclusion based on the present evidence..

Most cosmologists think that the universe is eternal? Are you saying that the majority of cosmologists reject the Big Bang?

[shunyadragon]

Most cosmologists think that the universe is eternal? Are you saying that the majority of cosmologists reject the Big Bang?

No, they consider the Big Bang to be a misnomer of the concept that our universe began expanding from a singularity. of what some call the Standard Model of cosmology. This concept refers to our universe only and not whether the greater cosmos which includes our universe is infinite and eternal or finite and temporal.

[shunyadragon]

No, they consider the Big Bang to be a misnomer of the concept that our universe began expanding from a singularity. of what some call the Standard Model of cosmology. This concept refers to our universe only and not whether the greater cosmos which includes our universe is infinite and eternal or finite and temporal.

Another note on the use of a matrix in physics and cosmology. Heisenberg was the first to use a matrix concept for his initial modeling of quantum mechanics called matrix mechanics.

[Calminian]

I am assuming a basically evidentialist stance here.

If you agree with the view that ID is not science or if you reject for some other reason, do you believe that a coherent argument for God's exsistence based on what we know about nature is still possible? .

An interesting question. But arguments for the existence of God usually aren't scientific per se. Neither is an argument for 2 plus 2 equaling 4. They are logical, but not necessarily using the scientific method.

I happen to believe that pure science cannot include non-uniform acts of God as a basic presupposition. It has to be uniformitarian. Science is based on predictable repeating patterns.

[aegis]

Hi All,

Interesting topic.Just like to add some comments to the cauldron of fiery discussions.

1. We human are finite and limited. The finite human wisdom cannot logically deduce the infinite. The finite human cannot exhaust the infinite possibilities. Hence , human wisdom cannot prove the existence of God/ Infinite. There is no deductive method for proof of God.

Hence, we cannot prove God. All the cosmological/ teleological/ design/ Kalam arguments are only arguments and not 'proof'.

We can only make out some clues or inklings, or some suggestions that God may be there. After looking at those clues, we have to make a decision to decide if we believe in God or in materialism whichever makes the most sense to us.

I tried to find God by looking objectively from science but it can only lead us so far, but the last miles there is an infinite divide between finite human and infinite God. It can only be breach by the relational touch.

Hence by looking at the universe, one can either say/believe that Big Bang theory 'suggests' that our universe has a beginning and hence there is a creator. Or alternatively, one can say/believe that Big Bang theory is just a part of the recurrent Big Bang/ Big Crunch of the multiverse which is forever eternal and self existing and there is no need for a creator God and there is just the material universe or multiverse. Just like Carl Sagan's proverbial quote.

Science cannot prove God. Science can give us some clues.

One cannot be a pure evidentialist. One has to make some presuppositions.Or one can change one's presuppositions after looking at some evidence and hence the inductive methods.

As to the scriptural references to the glory of God in the universe, I think one can make some clues to God but not prove God .

Reformers think that our sin/imperfection of humankind would blind/blur us to the glory of God in the universe: the spectacle approaches. Catholics and Aquinas think that we can gain some insights from the universe to God: the two books approaches. Hence the relationship between the universe and our knowledge of God are not straight forward.

I think that we can understand better after we believe.

regards

aegis