Augustin56
Well-Known Member
I fear you are caught in a scientistic error. Science, remember, is structured to gather data, make a hypothesis about that data, test that data, and if it holds true, then we conclude that we have found a scientific truth. Right?Let say the BB theory is true.
Well, then......the real science would not be to prove that stuff "banged"..... or even what caused the stuff to "bang"...... the real science would be to explain where the stuff originally came from that "banged".
After all, can matter just create itself from blank nothingness ?
That's a No.
Science can do a lot of talking but they can't Create a Red Rose from nothing.
Why?
Because.....God already did it for them.
But what does science say about things for which it cannot collect actual data through observation, etc.? Nothing. Absolutely nothing! Science is silent. In fact, about 99% of the universe is unaddressable by science, because it is out of our reach. And there are many thruths that science will never be able to address. For example, science can tell us the chemical makeup of the paint used to paint the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican. But science will never be able to tell us why that painting is beautiful! Similary, science can tell us the chemical makeup of the ink and paper in a book. But science will never be able to tell us the deeper meaning of a book of poetry. So, I would propose that holding science as the be-all and end-all of the measure of truth is a mistake. It's useful, in some situations, yes! But not in all and not everywhere.
But that doesn't mean we don't have evidence of God, or that we cannot reason to God based on what evidence we do have, such as the Big Bang theory. For example, the question whether the universe was created randomly or by design was calculated by a scientest named Roger Primrose. He calculated that the chances of the universe being created by entropy (randomness) was 1 in 10 to the 1230th power. That's 1 followed by 1230 zeroes!
Our legal system currently accepts DNA evidence as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in court. However, DNA has a 1 in 43 billion chance of being in error. That's 43, followed by 9 zeroes. The odds of the universe being created by entropy are many, many times smaller than DNA evidence being in error. And, yet, we accept DNA evidence as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."