Yes Virginia, there is a God.

Someone finally defined what evidence is required for the existence of God and what they consider "God". Kudos to Crank for this:

1) Evidence is anything which is measurable AND repeatable.


2) A supernatural invisible being

Ok then. First I would like to present WMAP. For those not familiar it is:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

What WMAP taught us was this:

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov

Here is the diagram:



On the far left edge of this diagram we see the universe had a beginning. 50 years ago it was believed that the universe was eternal and did not have a beginning, now we know different as shown in the diagram.

Now the black space around the diagram is nothing. It is not a vacuum because a vacuum is empty space and space is something. Nothing cannot really be understood by humans because the human mind relates to space, time and matter/energy. So outside the diagram cannot be comprehended by the human mind.

Now look at the left side of the diagram. The creation force is Quantum Fluctuations. The universe allows creation of something from nothing provided you have the laws of nature. The laws of nature are not physical but they act on the physical. So if they create the universe that means they predate the universe.

So what do we have?

We have a Set of Forces(Laws of Nature) that 1) Are Not physical 2)Act on the physical 3)Create something out of nothing 4)Predate the universe(or predate our understanding of time).

This is also the biblical definition of God. God 1)Is not physical 2)Acts on the physical 3)Creates something out of nothing 4)Predates the universe (or our understanding of time).

There you have it: 1) It is measurable and repeatable 2) Something that exists beyond our universe would be supernatural.

 

Does this evidence prove conclusively that God exists? To the extent that science can provide evidence, the answer is yes. I really do not know what some folks expect as far as evidence and so far, most people refuse to answer the question: what evidence is required to prove the existence of God?

Some folks will always refuse to accept any evidence no matter what it is. Perhaps they are waiting for 8X10 glossy photos. I do not expect to see such evidence. Not because I do not believe God exists but because I know the limitations of science as well as the limitations of human understanding.

So I do not buy the simple minded arguments used by atheists. I know the human experience is more than the rational mind. There are many things we do not understand yet we believe. For example, humans knew what gravity was before science gave it the name "gravity". Before it was called gravity we called it falling down.

So if one refers to the force responsible for existence as "God", it is perfectly valid to do so.

 

In addition to this information I find the fine tuning required for the universe to exist is compelling:

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

These facts alone suggest it is more likely than not the universe was "designed" by an intelligent agent. I doubt the universe appeared by accident but even so one could call the force, even accidental, a God.

 

And to add to your WMAP source, The National Academy of Sciences had referred to
THEISTIC Evolution - defined as the belief that God created the universe and all the processes that made evolution possible!

The NAS has blatantly admitted that there are evidences that reflect this belief in the PHYSICAL universe - as revealed (which means they've been observed) by cosmology, paleontology, and other disciplines of science.

Theistic Evolution is not to be confused with what the NAS identifies as "Special Creation" which is the literal interpretation of Creation in Genesis.

Here is the last part of the quote from the NAS, which is in the faq of NASA. That whole segment is quite interesting:

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html


However you slice and dice it, that still boils down to.......creation by God!

 

Please explain how something you admit might be accidental is also fine tuned,you just destroyed your own argument!

 

Given the small chance it is fine tuned, what is your beef?

 

I have no beef, you destroyed your own argument.

 

Not at all. My argument stands strong.

 

Of course not.

 

First you have not shown why this force is super natural or a being.
Second you have stated your so called fine tuning could be accidental.
You have just inserted the word god into the nothing gap.

 

You inserted the word nothing....so what?

Some may call something accidental while someone else calls the same thing God.....so what?

 

No, the word nothing is used 9 times in your 3rd diagram.
You have not explained why this something force is a being, which is in the definition you chose to use.

 

God or clear supernatural servants of this god, showing up, openly and explaining things and answering questions will do.

As for the fine tuning argument show me this is the case in other universes than our own, say a good sample of 1k or more and most collapsed and ours stood you may have a case.

 

Moving the goal posts are we?

Other universes? Lol!

 

People claim the universe is stable and therefore complex and therefore a creation of some divine mind however we only have One (1) example and therefore don't have anything to even compare this claim with. If I say supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies is common we have evidence in that we observed many and they have them and if say 95 out of 100 have these its a true claim. Would you consider this case if we only had one example our galaxy and knew there were other galaxies and on our one example made the former claim was true or would you say BS we have one example we need more then and only then will we have enough examples to make a claim?

As for proof of a deity I'm pretty simple if the deity wants us to acknowledge them its 100% on these beings to make contact, prove what they are, tell us what they want and what we get or will happen under various conditions like okay I Bob the God of Nature will stop climate change, purge pollution to 1700 levels, return all endangered species to a robust number and make sure everyone eats well growing crops being prosperous plus all humans will be fit and healthy until they reach 100 then they will fall asleep and die. And all he will ask is you sacrifice one virgin woman per 500 people to Bob from each city of 250,000 people a year after the males from that group have sex with her for fertility and this being does what he said first to prove he can do it I would say the sacrifice would be enough to warrant the benefits. If these deities don't make such contact is some way why should we waste money, resources and time on them since they don't care if we worship them or they would be far more obvious and be clear on what they want.

 

The problem is what people consider to be "God". If you are expecting a cartoon man with a grey beard I could see the skepticism. But it is perfectly valid to say "God" is whatever reason the universe exists. Hence, there is a God.

There is plenty of evidence for the universe being created by an intelligent agent but it is not simple to layout every detail, especially on an internet forum. While atheists expect simple answers to their simple minded arguments the case for God's existence is not simple.

 

Since you have not answered the question I will try again.

 

Why is it not a being?

 

In your evidence you show nothing to indicate this "force" is a being. Either show why it is a being or you have not met the definition you used.

 

Supernatural INVISIBLE BEING.

 

As we can see, some folks have made their minds up to not believe in God no matter if evidence is produced or not. They will continue to ignore the evidence and just continue to move the goal posts.

The fact is, as far as we know scientifically there is nothing to contradict a creator. Human knowledge is not advanced enough to completely reveal God and it probably never will be. If one takes into account what we know about the beginnings of the universe and what the Bible tells us then Christianity is spot on.

That is the final word. Now to move on to other things.

 

Yes, you have not provided any evidence for the supernatural invisible being, you have provided evidence for what you claim is a "force" invisible or otherwise is irrelevant. But being is important.

 

Everything needed has been provided. No need for word games.

 

No you have not, you have shown a "force" but not a being. There is no argument, everybody can look back at what you have written and you simply have shown no evidence for a being. If you have, show it.

 

Once again, you are playing word games. You want to focus on the word "being" only because it gives the impression of a physical being. Well, look at the words "super natural" and "invisible". There is your answer.