Jupiter, Metallic Hydrogen, and Intelligent Design

[Halbhh]

That doesn't sound like an acceptable answer.

How would I know it?

please see the remainder of #39 above -- it is not dogma, not ideology. I'm not repeating what others said. It's real experience, mine.

 

[Astrophile]

you know it when you see it (and I mean you yourself, not someone else's necessarily). Now, the thing is, my background in physics and math doesn't allow me to think lucky coincidences (uncommon ones) are miracles, even when the result is spectacularly good, etc.. No, instead for me I needed pretty much impossible seeming results, and that's what happened, more than just once. Further, after these shocking things, then the additional shock happened that each and every prayer I dared to make (keeping in mind I have real faith, that is actual, not just tradition, etc.) -- each prayer I could find out the results of, including several that were for me, we all answered, often dramatically, several times in ways that also seemed near impossible. [It's helpful to be aware that most people in churches and even many churches don't know what Christ said about how to pray prayers that get answered!] By itself, one or even 3 wouldn't have been so convincing, but when it's 20 of 20, then I began to get the implication. But....even just one really miraculous thing could be enough to change a person's attitude, and make them really seek God more, and here is the way --

13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you,” declares the Lord..."

You will note the words say "all" of your "heart", not just a part, but an all-in real seeking, with that openness in the heart. That itself is an act of faith for most people. Some people would need real work even just to get in touch with their heart, others perhaps to do any real act of trust, others to be able to take an emotional risk with their own fate (so to speak). It's not just easy for all to begin with. But it's a place a person can try and eventually get to. I had some stepping stones along the way that for the particular person I am helped me be more ready for that attempt. I had read Emerson and really liked him, I had read things Christ said like, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another", and "love your enemies", and "forgive [over and over and over], and I was struck by these gradually through my 20s as more than merely a nice dream, but more like the basis of any lasting peace and good will among peoples (sooner or later there is offense of some kind, and then only forgiveness allows peace that is more than temporary). So on a level I had some feeling that the profound already existed in Christ's words, and the only question was about that more supernatural side of it -- whether God is real.....and I was willing to take the risk to find Him, with the danger to my status quo that implied.

Has this got anything to do with Jupiter or metallic hydrogen?

 

[Radrook]

Where have you read this? And, at the beginning of your second sentence, who were 'They'?

The Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper that introduced the 'Big Bang' cosmology was published in 1948. At that time most people in Britain were Christians and church-goers. So far as I know, at the same time more than 80% of the population of the United States and of most of the countries of Western Europe (and Poland) were Christians, so I don't know why the idea that the 'Big Bang' cosmology indicated the existence of a creator should have caused a panic. Also, belief in a creator of the universe does not necessarily require a literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis.

I never claimed that a belief in a creator of the universe requires a belief in the biblically described God.

I never claimed that the majority of people panicked when they heard of the BB theory.

They are those who felt more comfortable with theories which did not require a sudden appearance of a universe as if it were suddenly created.

Objections to the Big Bang

l "philosophically unacceptable" (atheist John Maddox, “Down with the Big Bang”in Nature)

l "smacks of divine intervention" (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time).

The editor of the prestigious weekly science periodical, Nature, John Maddox, wrote an editorial entitled, "Down with the Big Bang," where he hoped for the downfall of the Big Bang model, because in it, he found it to be "philosophically unacceptable"1 and believes, theological creationists find "ample justification" for their creationist creed in it.
Physicist Hubert Reeves remarked that the Big Bang "involves a certain metaphysical aspect which may be either appealing or revolting".2
Christopher Isham observes:

"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."3

References

1. "Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, the Big-Bang is an over-simple view of how the Universe began, and it is unlikely to survive the decade ahead." Maddox, J. 1989. Down with the Big Bang. Nature 340: 425.
2. Reeves, H., Andouze, J., Fowler, W. A., and Schramm, D. N. 1973. On the Origin of the Light Elements. Astrophysical Journal 179: 912.
3. Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.

 

[Halbhh]

Has this got anything to do with Jupiter or metallic hydrogen?

Look to the first page for response to OP, the first response -- post #4. To learn more detail about Jupiter and metallic H I would search up articles, but our discussion here is about nature and God, as begun in the OP.