The problem is that God can be used to explain ANYTHING that we don't yet know. As I have stated before, I'm not arguing against the position of theism, or attempting to disprove him. I don't think that is within the scope of scientific discovery.
If that is what you have garnered through our conversation you didn't understand what I was claiming. We do know that the universe had a beginning. We have a multitude of different fields that provide us with evidence to support that conclusion. Objective scientific evidence that supports the universe had a beginning. The claim being made is that if God exists and claims that the universe had a beginning and we find that is true that supports His existence. If we had objective evidence that supported a conclusion that the universe has no beginning and has existed forever then that would falsify that claim.
So your question is whether or not what we know about the origin of the universe is consistent with what the Bible claims about his abilities. Well...yes, of course. Because his abilities can encompass anything.
My claim is that the Bible states that God said He created the universe, that it had a beginning. My claim which was number three was that if the universe had a beginning something or someone had to bring into being. It had a cause.
Now you are claiming that there may have been a "natural" cause that the universe came from and I claim that it was God. Those are not necessarily opposing points. I see natural processes are not exclusive property to the atheist/agnostic and that natural processes are the processes in force and are not necessarily separate from God. The point of the claim that the universe had a beginning and that something or someone had to cause it I feel is a true assessment. The reason it gives support to God's existence is that 1. The universe had a beginning just as the claim..thus a beginning supports the claim. 2. Something or someone caused it...thus God as you have stated has the ability if He exists to create the universe and is the someone that validates premise #2. So:
The universe exists and has a beginning
Since the universe had a beginning it had to be caused.
Something or someone had to cause it.
God has the ability to cause the universe.
God caused the universe.
This is a valid argument. It is supported by objective evidence. It is reasonable to conclude that God created the universe.
But the same could have been said about Ra before we understood what the sun is (in a limited sense, as he was not claimed to have had all-encompassing powers as the Christian God is). What was claimed about Ra was consistent with what they observed about the sun at that time, limited as it was. But as we have progressed further in our understanding about the universe, so too has God's interaction with the universe changed. (and no, I'm not trying to equate Ra to the Christian God, but rather speaking in terms of god in general.)
This example is showing that a god was put forth to explain the unexplained. What I have just shown was that with what we know (not what we don't) substantiates the claims.
Perhaps a better example concerns those who have accepted theistic evolution. The fact that God exists has not changed in their minds, but the degree in which he interacts with us, has. OEC and YEC both claim to worship the Christian God. And because his abilities are limitless, his interaction boils down to choice, rather than capability. Therefore, an old earth and/or evolution do not debunk the Christian God.
Considering I am OEC and worship the Christian God I would agree.
So what if we do find out if the singularity was caused naturally. Would that really debunk God? I don't think so. It would be just one more thing that he allowed to happen naturally, and the scope of his involvement would change.
I agree.
Because God has such a broad range of abilities, I don't think it is possible to debunk him.
I think it comes down to a world with or without Him that makes the case. My claims are valid. I think that we can both agree. Having a valid argument is not proving it. So my claims support His existence just as other arguments can be made with objective evidence to support them.
As such, if a conclusion is to be made, it can only be in the affirmative of his existence, once any natural explanations have been ruled out, (or, of course, if he decides to make his presence known to all humanity). Failing that, there will always be a debate between the two, regardless of the evidence at hand.
AS with any conclusion that we humans make, we do so by the accumulated evidences and experience we have. So evidence is important to us and I think can provide support to God's existence.
What this means is that as long as the evidence can support either idea, it cannot be used as evidence either for or against either. Because evidence is used to differentiate between two or more ideas. If it can't do that, it isn't evidence.
What it comes down to is that tipping point where one conclusion becomes more consistent and cohesive with the reality we perceive. No one comes to a conclusion in a vacuum. All the pieces of our perceptions come together to create our worldview. That is why it is so difficult to change that worldview, it is not a view without reason on any side of the issue.
