I don't see the claim of gods in anything they've written. Can you post quotes specifically saying that they feel the best scientific conclusion is that god did it?
Proof that unlikely things require god(s) to make them happen, please.
Well I wasn't so much trying to prove that God was the reason for how things came into being but pointing out that the naturalistic cause or method was hitting a wall and had no explanation at the moment. So it was more about showing how difficult it was for scientists to show evidence for a natural cause from out of nothing that could produce complex systems and a finely balanced universe and life.
But what i meant by the scientists were almost stating that there maybe an intelligent reason was because the conclusions they kept coming to like it seems that things are so finely tuned more or less says that there must be something other than random natural causes. For example this is what Stephen hawking said about a recent discovery that invalidate the multi universe theory which was the best answer they had at the moment.
After demonstrating the fallacies of the various theories that have attempted to validate a multiverse, Vilenkin summed up his conclusions by saying, All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning. This, naturally, put every philosophical naturalist and atheist into mourning because Hawking himself has admitted,
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.
Atheism and the Multiverse | Is the multiverse real? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
So it is by showing that natural things may have a beginning and that things are so finely tuned in itself gives evidence of a designer. Because if it has a beginning then something started it. If it is so finely tuned then something has tuned it. Natural random processes cannot be that precise.
It doesn't prove that God was involved but it does beg the question.
Or more realistically, they're doing what they always do. They ignore god(s) and other magic and focus on doing what they do best - coming up with testable explanations for naturally occurring phenomena.
Well i realize this is what they say they do and for the most this is the method they use in scientific study. But even though the multi universe theory had some aspects that were fitting in with their predictions there were things that were not. These increased over time and it became harder to hold onto this hypothesis. But many were calling it a theory and talked about it with gut so and still do. thats because there isnt really anything else to explain what they are seeing. Things just dont make sense and it is frustrating many. They cant make it fit and they cant find anything to fit in with the physics that they know of.
So they postulate these far fetched ideas and expand on them with things like there are dimensions where there is another you and me many times over doing something slightly different. Or everything is just a big hologram of a universe canvas thats projected through space and time. Or other theories like string theory and worm holes. There is no way of proving them just like God but they are happy enough to allow such talk and speculation to fuel their minds to the point of it almost being a faith based religion itself. So when I suggest that God can be an explanation it isn't so far fetched because no one demands that level of evidence when they speak about all their so called scientific theories of how things started.
Unless you can find quotes of actual scientists objecting to scientific theories because they might make belief in god(s) plausible, this comes across as some far-fetched conspiracy theory.
Well the above one was a good example from the man Stephen Hawking himself. There are many other scientist who are jesting things like at first glimpse you would thing there was a designer behind it. But they are not going to come out and admit that. Especially considering it goes against everything they stand for.
This short video gives one argument for why ID is possible or at least should be considered from a scientific stand point.
Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design What is the origin of digital information found in DNA? - YouTube
Anyway, none of this answers my question about evidence pointing specifically towards god(s) as the creator of the universe. All it is is a giant argument from ignorance. Yes, scientists haven't figured everything out yet. No, that doesn't mean we get to pretend that saying "god did it" magically fixes that problem. It just replaces an unknown with the inherently unknowable - that's going the wrong way towards a goal of understanding the world around us.
Well maybe it isn't such a giant argument from ignorance. The point at which scientist find themselves isn't because others are trying to push the God side of things as evidence. It is more from a lack of answers in the scientific world. Its not so much that they have maybe got it wrong and need to do some more research to find the answer. Its more that what they are seeing doesn't make sense and no amount of extra data will solve it. It is pointing to a finely tuned universe that produced life. Any slight variation and there would be any life. This is why they are postulating the multi universe theory as it takes away that unique finely tuned position we find ourselves in and adds in millions of other dimensions in which ours is just one. But that in itself is so far fetched. But they have to think that way because this is the only thing that can address this at the moment. So if we are left with just the one universe that is so finely tuned then this to me is suggesting a special situation that is unique and takes away the randomness of things just popping out of nothing and having a random self cause. This suggests special creation whether we admit it or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faber, a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, was referring to the idea that there is something uncannily perfect about our universe. The laws of physics and the values of physical constants seem, as Goldilocks said, just right. If even one of a host of physical properties of the universe had been different, stars, planets, and galaxies would never have formed. Life would have been all but impossible.
Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrinoa process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldnt be living here at allwe wouldnt exist.
Examples of such fine-tuning abound. Tweak the charge on an electron, for instance, or change the strength of the gravitational force or the strong nuclear force just a smidgen, and the universe would look very different, and likely be lifeless. The challenge for physicists is explaining why such physical parameters are what they are.
This challenge became even tougher in the late 1990s when astronomers discovered dark energy, the little-understood energy thought to be driving the accelerating expansion of our universe. All attempts to use known laws of physics to calculate the expected value of this energy lead to answers that are 10120 times too high, causing some to label it the worst prediction in physics.
The great mystery is not why there is dark energy. The great mystery is why there is so little of it, said Leonard Susskind of Stanford University, at a 2007 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The fact that we are just on the knife edge of existence, [that] if dark energy were very much bigger we wouldnt be here, thats the mystery. Even a slightly larger value of dark energy would have caused spacetime to expand so fast that galaxies wouldnt have formed.
That night in Hawaii, Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. One is that there is a God and that God made it that way, she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.
The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one, she said.
The only problem with this is it looks like the multi universe theory is being proved wrong as well. This ensemble would be the multiverse. In a multiverse, the laws of physics and the values of physical parameters like dark energy would be different in each universe, each the outcome of some random pull on the cosmic slot machine. We just happened to luck into a universe that is conducive to life.
Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? - The Nature of Reality
The only trouble is now they say that the multi universe theory maybe wrong as well.
No one is going to be able to prove God otherwise we would need faith. Besides what we are looking at i dont think there will be any evidence either way as to how things started and came into being. But sooner or later as more and more scientist are saying or at least thinking there is something going on here. It looks like more than just randomness and chance from self creating natural causes. They may not say its because of a Creator God but they cant deny there is some sort of intelligence and direction going on.
